The Feral Freedom program: leave outdoor cats where they are!

Even in parts of the country in which the dog overpopulation problem is mostly under control, the cat overpopulation problem is still rampant. Cats entering shelters often have a less than 50% chance of adoption, down to 10% or less in many communities. Certainly, unfriendly feral cats coming in to shelters have a miniscule chance of adoption, so small that most shelters euthanize them rather than trying to find them a barn home.

On the other hand, cats living outdoors often do very well for themselves. Contrary to the popular assumption that the life of an outdoor cat is nasty, brutish, and short, most of the cats coming through trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs are healthy. They may not live as long as indoor cats, but they are not miserable. To some people, the idea of euthanizing a cat rather than run the risk of its being hit by a car in a year seems silly or even a little mean.

The city of Jacksonville, Florida, recognized that the choice for outdoor cats, feral or not, was either to be spayed/neutered and returned to their territory, or euthanized. That was it. Certainly feral cats stood no chance of adoption, and the influx of friendly cats was so great that their chances weren’t much better. That realization was the seed of Jacksonville’s Feral Freedom program. This program facilitates the sterilization, vaccination, and return of all healthy outdoor cats that are presented to the shelter. These cats come from the surrender of “stray” cats and from active trapping. Rather than become shelter inhabitants, they are returned to the location where they were originally trapped or picked up.

Does it cost a lot? Because the city was holding all cats for five days in case an owner came to reclaim them, and paying for euthanasia and disposal of the body, the program costs the same as the previous policy, or a little less.

Do owners fail to find actual stray cats when they are not held in a shelter? Research has shown that stray cats are less likely to be reunited with their owners in shelters than if they are left outside to find their own way home. Many owners do not expect to see their outdoor cats daily, and may not start looking for a missing cat until after it has already been euthanized in a shelter.

Are outdoor cats nuisances? Some certainly can be, although sterilization does reduce nuisance behavior, and vaccination reduces disease. (Cats are much more likely to get sick in a shelter than outdoors.) Feral Freedom provides assistance to people with complaints about individual cats. They will trap, sterilize/vaccinate, and return the cat, and then suggest that people who want it off their property try methods like motion-sensitive sprinklers. (And hilarity ensues.)

Do the good citizens of Jacksonville approve of this program? Jacksonville initially implemented the program on the sly without a lot of publicity, but did publicize it once it had proven to reduce cat euthanasia rates in shelters. The city receives complaints about individual cats, but rarely about the program as a whole. Most people, when they understand that the cat’s choice is euthanasia or return, accept that putting the cat in a shelter is not a humane option. (Some people do disagree. That will be true of almost any public policy, except maybe the one where every new baby gets a chocolate eclair.) But cats will not be relocated, even problem cats. Aside from the question of how well a cat will do when dropped down into a new territory, there is nowhere for them to go. There are no places that want more outdoor cats.

And, of course, the ethical questions. Isn’t it the job of a shelter to provide care for homeless animals? Of course it is. But if the shelter does not have the resources to provide for all of them, does it become the job of the shelter to kill them when they are not otherwise suffering? And aren’t cats better off in a good home? Of course they are. But if there is no good home available (or even bad one), are they better off dead?

I certainly recognize that this approach to cat overpopulation is a controversial one and that many will disagree with it. (If there is interest, I may blog later about the questions of communicable disease in outdoor cats, or predation of wildlife by outdoor cats.) But I think we have reached the point in dealing with the pet overpopulation problem where revolutionary ideas are worth trying, because we have tried almost everything that is non-revolutionary. Don’t get me wrong: euthanasia of healthy domesticated animals has certainly decreased in the past decades. But there is still a long way to go. As one of my faculty advisors said to me recently, “It’s an exciting time in shelter medicine. Everything’s on the table.”

For more information:

• Feral Freedom Guide from Best Friends
• Feline Shelter Intake Reduction Program FAQs (PDF)
• TNR Fact Sheets from Vox Felina
• Feral Freedom comes to DeKalb country, Georgia

Organic standards and animal welfare

Over on Animal Science Review, Austin J. Bouck just posted his paper, Do organic animal operations encourage management decisions that negatively impact animal welfare? Personally, I do tend to buy organic dairy products when I can in hopes that I’m contributing to improved animal welfare, even though deep in my heart I suspect I’m doing no such thing. In veterinary school, classmates told me they avoided buying organic because of things they had seen on organic farms. I’ve argued before that the best way to ensure the welfare of the animals whose products you consume is to make your purchases at a local farmer’s market, but of course not everyone has access to those. So this question of whether organic is good for animal welfare or not is a pressing one.

Austin starts out with a discussion of terminology. The word “organic” has a legal meaning, but many producers also use terms like “natural” and “free-range,” which don’t. What do these terms mean to producers and what do they mean to consumers? I have heard veterinarians dismiss these terms as meaningless, but Austin describes a tendency among organic producers to view their ecocentric model of farm management as a way of managing their animals “naturally.” In an ecocentric model, overall sustainability of the farm and interactions with the environment take priority over individual health.

If that’s the case, what are the consequences to individual health of prioritizing the environment over the individual? Austin uses as his examples dairy cows, focusing on the use of antibiotics to treat infected udders, and chickens, focusing on the use of medication for parasite infection. In both cases, he describes the strong incentives for organic farmers to withhold treatment for disease, as once an animal has been treated with an antibiotic or antiparasitic, its products (milk, meat, or eggs) can no longer be considered organic. Austin explores alternative treatments and concludes that none are effective. He notes that in Europe, use of antibiotics and antiparasitics to treat clinical disease is legal in organic production; only preventive use is banned. He advocates a change in U.S. regulations to imitate the European model, on the reasonable theory that if incentive to withhold treatment is removed, then more sick animals will be treated.

I agree! I would have been very interested to hear some statistics about how many animals go untreated on organic farms, or how far illness on these farms might be allowed to progress before animals are treated, compared farms using conventional methods. Austin doesn’t say, and I think this is because no one really knows. It would be an interesting line of research, and possibly a necessary one if we want to get the American public fired up to support change in the current regulations. If a video of a sick cow being moved by a forklift was invigorating to the animal welfare community, maybe some videos of untreated sick animals on organic farms would be as well.

Check out the paper. It’s an interesting read.

Report from the trenches of local politics: pit pull ordinance hearing

Last night I attended a city council meeting in Worcester, in which the public was allowed to speak about the proposed pit bull ordinance. As a reminder, this ordinance would require pit bull type dogs in the city of Worcester to be muzzled when in public, and would require owners to post a sign warning that a pit bull type dog was in residence. Last night’s meeting was ably reported by the Telegram and Gazette, the local paper. I’ll give my own report here, and I’ll say up front that I don’t support the ordinance, and my reporting is biased (for the unbiased version, see the T&G).

As a Grafton resident, I was not allowed to speak at this meeting. I attended because I was curious, and to show support from the nearby vet school for opponents of the ordinance. Four other vet students attended with me (and maybe others that I didn’t know about). The room filled to overflowing, and was standing room only by the time the meeting came to order.

The first speaker was a state representative, who said that he had served on committees for animal legislation. He felt strongly that this ordinance doesn’t go far enough, and that pit bull type dogs should in fact be banned. He believed that “punish the deed, not the breed” was not a good argument against breed specific legislation, citing anecdotal evidence of pit bull type dogs having injured people. (He did not explain why he felt that breed was a better predictor of a dangerous dog than irresponsible ownership, something that often frustrates me about proponents of breed-specific legislation, because it seems to be such an obvious question to me.) His speech was greeted with loud boos from the audience, causing Mayor O’Brien to have to ask for quiet and for people to behave respectfully.

A representative of the Worcester Animal Rescue League also spoke. She made her case well, I thought, covering the important points: we have no reason to believe this ordinance will be effective; accurate identification of pit bull type dogs is very difficult; this ordinance will make people think the problem is solved when it is not. She was a good public speaker, something not to take for granted when a busy urban shelter needs to find someone to present their case at a city council meeting.

One person spoke in favor of the ordinance, saying that he had seen pit bull type dogs owned by drug dealers. Again, I felt that his case was lacking in some logic — perhaps ownership by a drug dealer might be a better predictor of a dog’s temperament than its breed.

Then people from the floor started lining up to speak against the ordinance. Mayor O’Brien attempted to alternate pro versus con speakers, but no one else was offering to speak in favor of the ordinance. So for the next 45 minutes, we heard from people against it. One speaker was a veteran of two wars who has a pit bull type dog with a Canine Good Citizen title, who is training her dog to do therapy work (going to places like hospitals and nursing homes to visit sick or elderly people who want to spend time with a dog). She was an excellent speaker who made good, logical points, but also had good emotional appeal.

Other speakers appealed solely to emotion, but I think that’s as important as appealing to logic in a situation like this. One elderly gentleman explained in detail how sweet his neighbor’s pit bull type dog was and how it liked to lick his face. While speeches like this seemed useless to one of my vet school compatriots, who wanted logic, logic, logic, I’m guessing that the less scientifically-trained in the audience found that sort of appeal more effective in some ways.

The ordinance will be voted on at the next city council meeting, in early September. In the meantime, apparently some motions were brought after I left, to modify the text of the ordinance to target dangerous dogs regardless of breed. That sounds like a good change to me. I’m hopeful that the suggestions that were presented to the city council will cause them to think this ordinance through over the next month, and possibly even work with the Worcester Animal Rescue League to redesign the ordinance. Something does need to be done, but whatever is done needs to target dangerous dogs, not dogs of a particular breed.

[ETA: Unfortunately, the ordinance passed, 9-2. It takes effect April 1, 2011.]

Muzzling the real solution to the problem

Some new legislation has been proposed in Worcester, the city next door to my town. This legislation proposes specific restrictions on pit bulls and their owners. Most importantly, pit bulls would have to be muzzled when out in public, though other restrictions are proposed as well, such as requiring pit bull owners to put signs in their front yards advertising that a pit bull lives there. The local paper has some details.

The MSPCA has a brief article about the legislation, with some quotes from one of the sponsors of the bill:

District 5 Councilor William J. Eddy pointed out that over the past three years, only 2 percent of the dogs licensed by the city are pit bulls, while 25 percent of all dog bites over the same period were caused by that breed... “Some will say this is not a (dog) breed problem, but an (dog) owner problem,” Mr. Eddy said. “These are aggressive dogs that can cause great damage. There isn't another breed in Worcester that has that kind of statistics.”

I am one of the people who will say that this is not a dog breed problem, but a dog owner problem. So how do I answer Mr. Eddy?

More bites are caused by pit bulls than by any other breed. Therefore pit bulls are dangerous.

First of all, is it “more bites” or “more reported bites”? Is it possible that people are more likely to report a pit bull bite because of the way the breed is perceived? Is it possible that mixed-breed dogs that bite are assumed to be pit bulls, because it is very hard to tell what is and isn’t a pit bull and because people assume that pits are liable to bite? The National Research Council released a report in 2007 arguing that there is a media bias against pit bulls, and that pit bull bites are more likely to be widely reported than bites involving dogs of other breeds.

But let’s say pits do bite more than other dogs. Is that a problem with the breed, or with perceptions of the breed, and therefore with the kind of people likely to own pits? Pits are the most popular breed used in the underground and illegal sport of dog fighting, for which they are bred and trained. The National Research Council reports that dogs which are not kept as pets, and dogs which are not humanely controlled by their owners, are the dogs which are most likely to bite. Are people more likely to treat pit bulls this way than Labrador retrievers? I think so.

Eddy is further quoted:

“We have a problem in this city and we have an opportunity to address this problem. Frankly, I think it’s long overdue.”

Yes, it is long overdue, and yes, let’s address this problem! (Lucky for Worcester, they have a veterinary school with a behavior department right next door.) So why is BSL (breed specific legislation) a bad answer?

Because it won’t work. This is the really important point! I don’t argue against BSL because I think it’s acceptable for dogs to bite children. I absolutely do not think that is acceptable. But BSL is not the answer. What will BSL actually do?

• Irresponsible owners who disobey the new muzzle law and are fined may surrender their dogs to a shelter instead of paying the fine. This is what happened in nearby Boston when a muzzle law was enacted there. (Original article in the Boston Herald is behind a pay wall; I linked to a version archived on an anti-BSL site, but don’t be confused by the URL. The article is from a real newspaper.)
• If the law successfully prevents dog fighters from using pit bulls, there is nothing to stop them from choosing another breed. The law isn’t targeted at dog fighters, however. Having to muzzle their dogs in public shouldn’t be much of a problem for people who don’t generally take their dogs out in public.
• In fact, there is really no such thing as a pit bull. The term refers to a loose group of dog breeds. Telling what is a “pit bull” and what isn’t has made BSL enforcement somewhat arbitrary in other cities. Take the test, see if you can do it. So this law is likely to be applied to dogs for whom it is not really intended.
  

But why not just try it? After all:

“We’re not talking about banning this dog; rather what we’re saying is that when you’re out on the public streets, pit bulls should be muzzled,” [Eddy] added.

So what’s the harm?

• Passing this law will be a Band-aid measure which will make the public think that the problem has been solved. There are some useful ways to address the problem of dog bites, but if this good energy for change is directed into a poorly designed law, there will be no impetus to find real solutions.
• A muzzle requirement will make it harder for responsible owners to socialize their dogs. How would you react to a muzzled dog which you met on the street? Would you want to pet it, or would you be afraid of it? If you were a dog and every human you met on the street was afraid of you, would you be enthusiastic about meeting new humans? Not to mention the human socialization problem! If your new neighbor had a sign in her front yard proclaiming that a pit bull lived there, would you be as likely to go over to welcome her to the neighborhood with some food? (My neighbors actually did that when I moved in. It was great.)
  

Dog Zombie, you are so right. I have seen the light. But does that mean we should sit back and do nothing?

I almost always have opinions on what should be done to fix the world!

• The AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) put together a task force on dog bite prevention which, in 2001, published a lovely article titled “A community approach to dog bite prevention.” This article has some specific suggestions for how communities should handle the problem, including both suggestions for prevention (controlling loose dogs, educating of animal control officers), and suggestions for how to handle bite incidents (having a protocol which includes reporting of the bite and follow-up investigation).
  
• Sue Sternberg (who is well known in the shelter community) is promoting a “Lug Nuts” program, in which teens who might otherwise participate in dog fighting are encouraged to instead enter their dogs in pulling competitions. What a creative idea for redirection! Extra points to Sternberg for working within the parameters of the problem instead of supporting rules passed down from on high.
• I think people need consequences. People need to be fined if their dogs are aggressive in public. Dog aggression needs to be taken seriously before bites happen, and no matter what breed is involved (“punish the deed, not the breed”). And laws against dog fighting need to be actively enforced.
  

My final message to Mr. Eddy: You have hold of an important issue. Please take steps to address it wisely. The solution you have proposed will be successful only in winning you votes, not in reducing dog bites. There are better ways. Find one.

The devocalization debate

Today, a newspaper local to me published a story about the devocalization debate in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts legislature is currently considering a bill which would make illegal the procedure for debarking dogs, or surgically altering their vocal cords to reduce the noise they make when barking. Various humane societies (including MSPCA-Angell) support the bill, because they feel that debarking is inhumane. The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association opposes the bill, because it takes away from veterinarians the ability to exercise their professional judgement.

I can see both sides of the issue. I don't know any details about the procedure itself, but I do know that when a dog barks excessively, there is usually some reason for it. Dealing with the symptom (barking) and not the underlying problem (separation anxiety, boredom, possibly something else) is not going to serve the owner or the dog well in the long run. The problem will manifest some other way. I don't know if this procedure is being used frequently and inappropriately in Massachusetts; I don't personally know any veterinarians who would perform it lightly, but I imagine that some such do exist in the state.

But should it be made illegal? I have to agree with the MVMA that the state should not be telling veterinarians how to do their jobs. Extenuating circumstances do occur, and I believe the decision to perform a procedure like this should be in the hands of the individual who spent four years earning his DVM (plus possible post-doctorate work in a residency program), and the owner of the dog, not in the hands of lawmakers who don't know the individual situation. Under the proposed bill, veterinarians will be able to apply for exemptions for "medical reasons," and only time would tell if behavior became recognized as a medical reason. But I don't like the idea of having to apply to the state to have a medical procedure done. I don't like the direction that takes us.

What do I propose as a solution? I think this problem should be solved by veterinarians. I think the MVMA should recognize that the problem is one that the citizens of this state currently find important, and should treat it seriously. A good first step could be forming a task force composed of representatives of the MVMA and of the groups who are in favor of this bill. This task force could provide a report on how often the debarking procedure is actually being performed, and under what circumstances. The task force could then identify problematic cases and discuss how they should have been handled differently, then discuss what options should have been available to that veterinarian and owner in that case. Are a significant number of veterinarians jumping to the surgery too quickly? Perhaps the MVMA can provide education to its members about the consequences of this procedure and some alternatives. Was the owner unaware of behavioral interventions? Could he not afford a trainer or a dog walker? Perhaps options should be made available for low-income people who cannot afford to deal with their animals' behavioral problems.

I would trust the MVMA and the MSCPA to find a solution to this problem, if they were able to work together. I'm not sure I trust the Massachusetts legislature to do so.