Pet overpopulation is a myth

I think it depends on several factors - location and type of pet. For example in my area, there is actually a shortage of adoptable young, healthy, small to medium sized dogs.  Yet, the shelters are overflowing with pit bulls, rottweillers, and gsd and lab mixes.  The pit bulls and rottweilers must come from other areas because they are not commonly owned breeds where I live.  I think there are so many of them in the shelters because the demand for these kinds of dogs is much lower than other breeds and they don't get adopted as readily. A small to medium sized dog that enters a shelter here is typically adopted within days or is immedilatey snatched up by a rescue, especially if it is a purebred. If that is the type of dog you are looking for then you may very well end up on a long waiting list.  There are also many more cats than dogs in the shelters here.  I would say that there is a cat overpopulation problem no matter where you live.

 Ah transfer programs.  They have a ton of inherent problems themselves, not the least of which is the potential to pass diseases cross country by transporting an animal harboring something through multiple states nor the welfare issues involved in transports lasting many hours.  Transfers within a local area are generally less risky, but from the SE to the NE and similar routes you can run into some nasty stuff.  Not saying they can't be done, just that they're not the panacea people think they are.

Our shelter has a low cost S/N program, low cost behavioral services, working on behavior evaluation and enrichment programs, has a solid corps of volunteers, just hired a development/communications person, and has a stellar humane ed curriculum that has been recognized nationally, but we still get 18000 animals a year.  The neighboring county gets 27000 animals. 

The shelter in IN I volunteered with has a small humane ed program, some fostering, awesome volunteers, a transfer program, and did some basic behavioral evaluations.

For our shelter, a larger foster program would help for sure, but there's a lot of programming considerations to work out before jumping into it so as to minimize risks (right now we have a few fosters and already have some mild issues that come up regularly).  We had a transport program, but the receiving shelter rejected us this year, I don't know why.

In our case, I think it comes down to the mentality differences in the north vs. in the south.  Those mentality differences are what has influenced the massive difference in population size - not the shelters' willingness to institute programs as has been implied.

I do find it interesting that a lot of the shelters and programs mentioned by people convinced that there is no overpopulation are successful in smaller shelters located in the NE (where I won't argue there is very little excess in terms of adoptable animals).  I don't see a whole lot coming from the SE where the overpopulation problem tends to be pretty obvious.

2bully

Liesje

I definitely agree that different areas are more saturated than others.  A few years back, our county shelter, humane society, and a few rescue groups joined together in a "network".  The human society does not euthanize for space BUT you have to PAY to surrender an animal, so they automatically have more funds and space at their disposal.  It's free to dump and animal at the county shelter, plus they take in strays and have to hold the animals for court cases.  The county shelter DOES have to euthanize for space.  Now, after this program went into affect (the HS and rescue groups helping absorb overflow from the county shelter), euthanasia went down 15%.  If there was NOT an overpopulation of unwanted animals, wouldn't the number have been 100%?  That means there are still hundreds of euthanizations a year by the county shelter.

I personally have brought in two stray dogs. At the Humane Society, I think the majority of owner surrenders are "behavioral problems" that the owners don't want to deal with, or people that have to move.  But even there I watched a lot of drop-offs that were people who found stray animals.  One guy stopped his pickup truck by me b/c he found a pit bull and was worried she would be euth'd b/c of her breed before she was given a chance.  I've never volunteered for the county shelter, but I suspect that since they are the animal control shelter, they have a much higher ratio of strays/at large animals.

So, I can't agree that HERE there is NOT an overpopulation problem, when the county shelter and one of the main rescues is routinely euthanizing unwanted animals for space, even after a network was setup to move overflow animals to other rescues.  I believe the same is true for the county to my east.  I've visited their shelter twice to pull a dog.  The manager told me they mainly have strays.  The county to the north sells their animals for research, so people will dump their animals across the county line, or put a stray across the line.  This shelter in particular is always in bad shape.  The shelter itself is nothing more than a lean-to.  It was so over-crowded they had dogs in rabbit hutches.
 

 Stray dogs are strays because they were born? An owner that surrenders a dog for behavioral problems was in that predictiment for simply being born. An inability to abandon the idea that the breeding of a puppy that was wanted is somehow linked with the death of that dog in a shelter when it became unwanted.

I'm not sure what this means.  If shelters and rescues are still euthanizing at a pretty substantial rate, I call that an overpopulation of animals.  Why they are unwanted or how they ended up there doesn't change the math.  Around here, even purebreds from breeders have saturated the market.  I know a local GSD breeder who dumps puppies at vet's offices and rescues b/c he has too many.

I think the motivations for owners dumping their pets and whether or not our area has an overpopulation of dogs are two different issues.  They may be linked, but I don't see how one causes or negates the other. 

Liesje

2bully

Liesje

I definitely agree that different areas are more saturated than others.  A few years back, our county shelter, humane society, and a few rescue groups joined together in a "network".  The human society does not euthanize for space BUT you have to PAY to surrender an animal, so they automatically have more funds and space at their disposal.  It's free to dump and animal at the county shelter, plus they take in strays and have to hold the animals for court cases.  The county shelter DOES have to euthanize for space.  Now, after this program went into affect (the HS and rescue groups helping absorb overflow from the county shelter), euthanasia went down 15%.  If there was NOT an overpopulation of unwanted animals, wouldn't the number have been 100%?  That means there are still hundreds of euthanizations a year by the county shelter.

I personally have brought in two stray dogs. At the Humane Society, I think the majority of owner surrenders are "behavioral problems" that the owners don't want to deal with, or people that have to move.  But even there I watched a lot of drop-offs that were people who found stray animals.  One guy stopped his pickup truck by me b/c he found a pit bull and was worried she would be euth'd b/c of her breed before she was given a chance.  I've never volunteered for the county shelter, but I suspect that since they are the animal control shelter, they have a much higher ratio of strays/at large animals.

So, I can't agree that HERE there is NOT an overpopulation problem, when the county shelter and one of the main rescues is routinely euthanizing unwanted animals for space, even after a network was setup to move overflow animals to other rescues.  I believe the same is true for the county to my east.  I've visited their shelter twice to pull a dog.  The manager told me they mainly have strays.  The county to the north sells their animals for research, so people will dump their animals across the county line, or put a stray across the line.  This shelter in particular is always in bad shape.  The shelter itself is nothing more than a lean-to.  It was so over-crowded they had dogs in rabbit hutches.
 

 Stray dogs are strays because they were born? An owner that surrenders a dog for behavioral problems was in that predictiment for simply being born. An inability to abandon the idea that the breeding of a puppy that was wanted is somehow linked with the death of that dog in a shelter when it became unwanted.

 

I'm not sure what this means.  If shelters and rescues are still euthanizing at a pretty substantial rate, I call that an overpopulation of animals.  Why they are unwanted or how they ended up there doesn't change the math.  Around here, even purebreds from breeders have saturated the market.  I know a local GSD breeder who dumps puppies at vet's offices and rescues b/c he has too many.

I think the motivations for owners dumping their pets and whether or not our area has an overpopulation of dogs are two different issues.  They may be linked, but I don't see how one causes or negates the other. 

 I'm saying that every dog in a shelter or rescue is not there for simply being born. Yes there are litter and puppy surrenders, but there are also dogs surrendered for a whole list of reasons that aren't directly related to its birth. Stray dogs aren't stray because they were born, they're strays due to irresponsible handling or containment. Here are the results of 2 polls I conducted on a different forum(the forum is a bullbreeds forum).

Have you or somebody you know been denied for an adoption through a shelter or rescue?
Yes (but for a valid reason at the time) 13% ( 3 )
Yes (for a trivial reason) 36% ( 8 )
No ( I have never been denied) 50% ( 11 )
Total Votes : 22

Have you or sombody you know have a negative experience with a shelter?
yes 64% ( 22 )
no 35% ( 12 )
Total Votes : 34

Looking at these results are there not any opportunities that could be improved on? I'm willing to provide direct links to the polls through pm if asked. Are these results part of the problem or part of the solution? If you conclude that these results are contributing how do they relate to a dog being born?

stardog85

 Ah transfer programs.  They have a ton of inherent problems themselves, not the least of which is the potential to pass diseases cross country by transporting an animal harboring something through multiple states nor the welfare issues involved in transports lasting many hours.  Transfers within a local area are generally less risky, but from the SE to the NE and similar routes you can run into some nasty stuff.  Not saying they can't be done, just that they're not the panacea people think they are.

Our shelter has a low cost S/N program, low cost behavioral services, working on behavior evaluation and enrichment programs, has a solid corps of volunteers, just hired a development/communications person, and has a stellar humane ed curriculum that has been recognized nationally, but we still get 18000 animals a year.  The neighboring county gets 27000 animals. 

The shelter in IN I volunteered with has a small humane ed program, some fostering, awesome volunteers, a transfer program, and did some basic behavioral evaluations.

For our shelter, a larger foster program would help for sure, but there's a lot of programming considerations to work out before jumping into it so as to minimize risks (right now we have a few fosters and already have some mild issues that come up regularly).  We had a transport program, but the receiving shelter rejected us this year, I don't know why.

In our case, I think it comes down to the mentality differences in the north vs. in the south.  Those mentality differences are what has influenced the massive difference in population size - not the shelters' willingness to institute programs as has been implied.

I do find it interesting that a lot of the shelters and programs mentioned by people convinced that there is no overpopulation are successful in smaller shelters located in the NE (where I won't argue there is very little excess in terms of adoptable animals).  I don't see a whole lot coming from the SE where the overpopulation problem tends to be pretty obvious.

Its not about finding faults in programs that are being used successfully, its about finding why they're successful and mimic/adopt those programs to suit individual needs.

2bully

Liesje

I'm not sure what this means.  If shelters and rescues are still euthanizing at a pretty substantial rate, I call that an overpopulation of animals.  Why they are unwanted or how they ended up there doesn't change the math.  Around here, even purebreds from breeders have saturated the market.  I know a local GSD breeder who dumps puppies at vet's offices and rescues b/c he has too many.

I think the motivations for owners dumping their pets and whether or not our area has an overpopulation of dogs are two different issues.  They may be linked, but I don't see how one causes or negates the other. 

 I'm saying that every dog in a shelter or rescue is not there for simply being born. Yes there are litter and puppy surrenders, but there are also dogs surrendered for a whole list of reasons that aren't directly related to its birth. Stray dogs aren't stray because they were born, they're strays due to irresponsible handling or containment. Here are the results of 2 polls I conducted on a different forum(the forum is a bullbreeds forum).

Have you or somebody you know been denied for an adoption through a shelter or rescue?
Yes (but for a valid reason at the time) 13% ( 3 )
Yes (for a trivial reason) 36% ( 8 )
No ( I have never been denied) 50% ( 11 )
Total Votes : 22

Have you or sombody you know have a negative experience with a shelter?
yes 64% ( 22 )
no 35% ( 12 )
Total Votes : 34

Looking at these results are there not any opportunities that could be improved on? I'm willing to provide direct links to the polls through pm if asked. Are these results part of the problem or part of the solution? If you conclude that these results are contributing how do they relate to a dog being born?

I'm not disagreeing with your suggestions but I'm still confused.  The title of the thread states that "pet overpopulation is a myth".  How does proving that people have had negative experiences with shelters or being turned away prove that pet overpopulation does not exist?  I am just providing data from our local animal network that proves that we are still over-saturated with adoptable pets, thus pet overpopulation is NOT a myth.

I got you to look didn't I? I provided links to support my thesis as of yet nobody has provided any links that contradicts anything I have said or provided. Why were people denied for trivial reasons if the goal is to adopt out this "overpopulation"? Shouldn't shelters work hard to make every experience a positive one to ensure repeat visits? If people have a poor opinion they are unlikely to adopt. You're so busy focasing on only one aspect of this thread you're possibly missing the big picture. You're so focased on arguing that "overpopulation" is a fact that you might have missed all of the opportunities that have presented themselves in this thread. Not in anything that I have said or linked did it say that shelters and rescues do not face a population crisis.

2bully

I got you to look didn't I? I provided links to support my thesis as of yet nobody has provided any links that contradicts anything I have said or provided. Why were people denied for trivial reasons if the goal is to adopt out this "overpopulation"? Shouldn't shelters work hard to make every experience a positive one to ensure repeat visits? If people have a poor opinion they are unlikely to adopt. You're so busy focasing on only one aspect of this thread you're possibly missing the big picture. You're so focased on arguing that "overpopulation" is a fact that you might have missed all of the opportunities that have presented themselves in this thread. Not in anything that I have said or linked did it say that shelters and rescues do not face a population crisis.

2bully, I volunteer for shelters and rescues (I walked dogs, cleaned kennels, do home checks for GSD rescue, pull dogs from neighboring shelter...), I am WELL aware of these problems as I've faced them myself (I have four rescued pets, I live in a rental duplex with no fence, most people will not consider me for adoption).  I have been on both sides of the issue many times.  I have never disagreed with your information, but I think it's disrespectful to use shock tactics just to get people to click on a link.  People are confused about what you are trying to say because you made a claim that pet overpopulation is a myth but have provided no real evidence to support or even address that claim.  Perhaps you should change the title of your thread to reflect what you are actually trying to say. 

Personally, I believe the best way to adopt out pets is on a case-by-case basis, but the reality is that most rescues do not have the time or resources, and many shelters will not accept the liability and protect themselves with stricter, blanket rules.  Luckily, our Humane Society receives a decent amount of private funding (they are not associated with HSUS and get all their own funding) so they offer additional programs.  Most adoptions come with a stipulation that the owners sign up for obedience class as part of the adoption.  That way they can address any "problems" right away, before the owner blames the dog and dumps it back. 

My only real issue with owner retention is that I do believe there are some people who were never fit to own a dog in the first place and the dog IS better off with someone else.  I found a dog on the street during a blizzard with record low temps.  The dog was covered in chunks of snow and ice.  It knew commands and was wearing a collar, so obviously someone owned it.  However it was suffering from a UTI, very dirty, he wore no tags, and was not microchipped.  I drove around the streets and didn't find anyone looking for the dog.  I called the shelters and no one was looking for him.  We drove around looking for posters and found a poster for a lost dog, called the family, but it was the wrong dog.  I posted on Craigslist...nothing.  No one was even looking for him.  I took him to the shelter b/c I work full time and this particular dog had separation anxiety.  Little white dogs get adopted in minutes.  He never even made it on PetFinder.  I'm betting he's in a better home now than he was with people who let him wander in a blizzard and never came looking.  I've also seen dogs that were physically abused or neglected by their owners.  I don't have the patience to deal with people like that and convince them they are wrong.  With those cases I'd rather focus on the dog and get it a better home.

LOL, thanks for summing up my confusion as well.

Would have a ? at the end of the title of the thread been more to your liking? Should we not employ tatics that are successful? Should we not employ the same tatics that are employed against us?

I still have yet to see any links that dispute what I've brought to the table. I have provided several independant sources that defined overpopulation. Overpopulation is an inaccurate way to describe the problem. By misidentifying the problem we miss oportunities that increase our effectiveness to remedy the problem. By having the term overpopulation as the definition of the problem is it any wonder that manditory spay and nueter laws are gaining popularity. Yet the majority of the reasons pets are in shelters aren't addressed by these laws they only target one aspect of the problem.

2bully, I have been reading this thread from the start, although I may have missed a few posts here and there.  I agree with you 100%.  I will be attending a seminar put on by Nathan Winograd in Austin.  I hope to see area shelter directors and staff there but unfortunately SOME shelter people seem to feel like they know everything there is to know about the problem and won't bother to attend.

Thanks for your attempt to educate and to get people to think about it from a different perspective.

Thank you.

Personally I do not believe that overpopulation is the ONLY reason why so many animals are in shelters.  The majority of the animals that are in the shelter where I volunteered were owner-surrenders.  The #1 reason is "have to move", but we feel that most people lie, more people get rid of pets b/c they don't have time to care for them, or don't feel like addressing a behavioral problem, and it's easier to tell the vet tech it's b/c they have to move and are forced to get rid of the pet.  I have absolutely nothing against shelters addressing this issue, advocating for owner retention, and doing better jobs of getting dogs adopted out. 

Another issue I see a lot is puppies.  People just want puppies.  Then when the puppy is big, they don't want it any more.  Ergo, the puppies all get adopted while the adults are euth'd for space, and the dogs being surrendered are perfectly good adult dogs (that just need some boundaries and training). 

However, I don't see these issues as mutually exclusive.  Overpopulation IS a problem in many urban areas.  Around here, the Humane Society and rescues are for the most part not over-saturated.  Most of their animals are owner-surrenders.  But the county shelter both here, to my east, and to my north ARE saturated with strays and animals are routinely euthanized.  So while addressing owner retention will definitely help, it's not going to touch on the segment of the population that are strays.  The county shelters are required by law to hold strays much longer than owner-surrenders, so these are actually the dogs that are taking up the space and resources (not that they don't deserve it) and by law, the shelter cannot start adopting them out until a certain length of time has passed.  It's not as easy as just blaming the shelters, county shelters do not have a choice.  If someone reports a dog at large, they have to take it in and hold it for at least five days.  They don't have the manpower or resources to walk the dog door-to-door to find an owner and don't have the money to offer programs to help that owner keep their dog.

As for the links you posted:

Listen up! The notion that there is a "pet overpopulation" problem is nothing more than a figment of the imagination of the anti-pet, anti-pet owner, anti-pet breeder animal rights fanatics.

Yes, you read that correctly. There is definitely NOT an overpopulation of dogs or cats, at least not in the United States.

Math from our local shelters disproves these statements at least locally.

As for importing dogs, I know that our county shelters do not.  Our Humane Society absorbs animals from the county shelter and two local rescues, they do not import from other states or countries.  Both the shelter and those rescues are STILL euthanizing animals even with the HS' help.

Patronek said that the reluctance to shift from an emphasis on alleged “overpopulation” to a multi-faceted strategy to prevent shelter euthanasia is based on several factors, including:

• Regional imbalances in puppy numbers — although some areas of the country import puppies to meet the demand, others do have a surplus

I find this to be representative if our area.  The HS rarely has trouble adopting out puppies but on the GSD board alone there has been outrage about puppies as young as 9 weeks being euthanized for space.  The saturation not only varies by locale, but even shelter to shelter.

Strays are an owner retention problem. The owner has by choice, ignorance, or what ever reason is unable to retain their pet. I see an opportunity to educate on proper methods of confinement that promotes retention. If a shelter is succesful at adopting out large breeds but has a surplus of medium size breeds wouldn't common sense dictate to work with a shelter that is more successful with medium dogs and less with large dogs? I've provided three independant links that say that some shelters are importing from foreign countries. Common sense says that we should first manage our own "overpopulation" crisis.