Legislative Articles

This article available in PDF format

Pet Overpopulation -- A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

The furor is growing. The term "pet overpopulation" has become a household word. It is fueled by assertions by animal rights organizations and humane agencies, as well as easy public acceptance and breeder/exhibitor concern. Who among us as animal-lovers can help but be moved by articles and advertisements displaying pictures of dead dogs and cats?

Therein lies the rub and the danger. Quite possibly, the words -- not the fact -- of pet overpopulation may be the single greatest danger to those very animals we want to love and protect. That danger is multi-faceted.

The danger to the breeder/exhibitor/fancier is the most apparent, and manifest in the restrictive anti-breeding proposals sweeping city and county governmental bodies and state legislatures across the country. The words are the same, scripted by Kim Sturla (of the San Mateo ordinance fame) and her continual cross-country junketing preaching her message: "The problem is simple: we have too many dogs and cats. Too many for too few homes." In fact, this message has been repeated enough in the last 3 years, that it is now promoted as an automatic assumption.

Consider the semantics. By definition, "pet overpopulation" can only mean that too many pets are being born. Once accepted, the next logical step is that to remedy this perceived problem, we must prevent so many from being born. Continue in logical progression to the way to prevent so many from being born is by neutering or spaying. By this point in the sequence, the only possible remaining argument is whether neutering/spaying should be mandatory or voluntary -- legislation or education.

Fanciers who have served on a local task force (almost always named "Pet Overpopulation" Task Force) are at a disadvantage, both logically and emotionally, from the get- go. By the time someone on the committee thinks to question whether there is, indeed, a problem of too many pets being born, committee considerations may be too far advanced into the mandatory vs voluntary stage for the question to be effective. Lines in the sand will already be drawn as everyone points fingers at who he perceives to be the "villain" in this scenario -- the pet shop, the puppy/kitten mill, the "backyard breeder." As a result, the root causes of the numbers of animals dying in shelters may be completely overlooked. While all attention, and possibly legislation, is directed at getting those animals sterilized, animals will continue to die.

Face it, Fanciers, the publicity garnered by this gross oversimplification has been a bonanza for all those national and local animal rights and animal welfare agencies in increased donations. The healthy puppy and kitten euthanized on live television as a kick-off to Kim Sturla's original breeding ban proposal sent animal lovers scurrying to their checkbooks, and this tactic is being repeated nationwide. Walk into any pet food/supply house today, and you will find displays from pet food manufacturers promising to give a percentage of sales to an animal welfare organization or to a national group such as HSUS. That is the same money that was going to promote cat and dog shows. While cat clubs routinely received sponsorship dollars, then donated show proceeds to shelters, the current trend is to "eliminate the middle man", to the detriment of the educational benefits of these shows.

When task forces do begin to analyze the causes of animals dying in shelters, many reasons begin to surface that have nothing to do with how many are being born. Begin with the most obvious: most shelters readily admit that they classify more than half the animals they handle as "unadoptable" because of age, health or temperament. If a frightened cat hisses at its handler, it is immediately classified as "unadoptable." If a Persian is matted, likely it too will get the thumbs down. If an animal has a broken leg, it will assuredly be "unadoptable." These animals are euthanized immediately with no attempt at rehabilitation in the vast majority of shelters. Budget and personnel restrictions are cited by humane agencies as well as city "pounds."

Closer scrutiny of any local private or public shelter will reveal other shortcomings that have nothing to do with how many animals are born. Are shelter hours not "user friendly"? How difficult is it for an owner to track down his lost pet among the local shelters -- is there a Lost Pet Hotline in place? Are fines and reclaim fees beyond the means of the average citizen? For that matter, are adoption fees at either city or humane agency shelter prohibitive or at least discouraging, thus sending the potential adopter to the "free kitten" ads? Is the shelter clean, inviting, and in a good neighborhood?

To underscore this fact, the North Richland Hills, Texas Animal Control Director reports that when their shelter hours were extended to 7:00 pm daily, adoptions rose by a whopping 65% immediately!

An interesting insight was provided to animal control officers and humane workers at the April Texas Federation of Humane Society's conference by Mike Arms, Director of Operations for North Shore Animal Rescue League. "If your shelter is euthanizing only adult dogs and cats (as opposed to healthy puppies and kittens), you don't have an overpopulation problem. You have a people problem," he explained. "Pet overpopulation means not enough homes," he went on, "and these adult animals had homes, but for some reason no longer do." He stressed the need to address those reasons. An American Veterinary Medicine Association study found that the vast majority of animals relinquished at shelters were because of behavior problems that owners did not know how to deal with.

Mary Stewart, retired CFA judge, addressed the same conference, and through her expert advice on handling shy, frightened or intransigent cats, may well be saving many feline lives.

Meanwhile, as the Humane Society of the United States and other organizations trumpet the need for legislation to control breeding, everyone is caught up in the morass of "who's to blame" for the purported "crisis." Fanciers automatically focus on pet shops and "backyard breeders" (by our definition) who sell for a profit motive and without contracts requiring neutering or spaying. Again, this obscures the fact that dogs or cats of any recognizable breed, all together, no matter the source, account for fewer than 10% of animals entering shelters (cats less than 1%).

"Although many breeders staunchly oppose a temporary breeding moratorium, many conscientious breeders and fanciers are voicing their support for stricter breeding legislation," says HSUS. And here is where "conscientious breeders" find themselves at odds even among themselves, most often because of the very different husbandry required of cat and dog breeders. Ask anyone who has ever served on a task force about the impossible task of defining a "backyard breeder" in a legal sense.

While these debates rage on, animals are, indeed, dying in shelters. We are constantly reminded of that fact as the print and television media publish statistics and heart-wrenching photos. What are some of the other results of this publicity?

There is ample evidence that John Q. Public, riddled by guilt and by the visible reminders of the probable fate of animals in shelters, is turning to "dumping" the pet he can no longer keep (for whatever reason), "to give it a chance at life." This will apply to cats more so than dogs because of the cat's perceived ability to fend for itself.

"Coercive breeding control measures ... are also potentially harmful. Such measures may well encourage people to abandon litters and pregnant pets in order to avoid being penalized, and this could result in even more animals being left to suffer -- and to breed -- in our parks and alleyways," according to Richard Avanzino, President of the San Francisco SPCA.

Still more insidious harm to the animals by this horrific publicity are beginning to be recognized by animal experts. According to animal behaviorist Gary Wilkes, "Many humane groups slant their advertising to manipulate the sentiments of pet lovers. This 'adopt them, or else' tactic may lead to adoptions in the short term, but may ultimately lead to serious side effects. The most obvious problem with this subtle coercion is that people are persuaded to adopt a pet for the wrong reasons. Rather than picking a pet that is right for them, they are tempted to pick one specifically because it is otherwise unadoptable...Another side effect of 'death row' adoptions is that concern for the animal's life ends the moment it leaves the shelter."

Wilkes concludes with, "Promotional programs that imply that you should acquire a pet in order to prevent it from being killed confuse the issue of humane care and treatment of animals. The best reason to acquire a pet is simply because you want one. Along with that desire should go the commitment to provide food, shelter, veterinary care, training and love."

The silver lining in this entire issue is that fanciers are becoming more aware of and actively involved in humane activities, such as rescue and shelter adoption days. The dark cloud inside that lining, though, looms large with the possibility that the media hype and subsequent government regulation could not only destroy the organized fancy, but could cause irreparable harm to the animals themselves.

"Pet overpopulation" is more than the grossest of oversimplifications. It is the publicly acceptable excuse for animal rights extremists to begin their pyramid of legislation that will end breeding. It is the goose that laid the golden egg for donation-dependent organizations, as well as an effective smokescreen to hide inefficient or shoddy shelter policies and procedures. It is an excuse to kill even more animals that might be rehabilitated. It obscures the abundant data that the numbers of animals handled and euthanized by shelters have been on a steady downward track for years, and that more than 80% of all owned pets are already neutered or spayed -- proof that education by the animal welfare community and the organized fancies are working. It turns all elements of the animal loving community against one another, a schism the animals cannot afford.

by Anna Sadler - Cat Fanciers' Almanac (September, 1994)

To correspond with the CFA Legislative Committee, please send email to legislation@cfa.org

Contact CFA | Privacy Policy | Credits | Search | FAQ

Copyright ©1995-2007 The Cat Fanciers' Association, with the exception of the photographic images which are Copyright © by the individual photographers.