How Many Animal Are Euthanized Each Year Index

• Periodical List
• Animals (Basel)
• v.8(v); 2018 May
• PMC5981279

Animals (Basel). 2018 May; viii(5): 68.

Domestic dog Population & Dog Sheltering Trends in the Us of America

Andrew Rowan

¹Chief Scientific Officer, The Humane Club of the United States, 1255 23rd Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA

Tamara Kartal

ⁱⁱCompanion Animal Division, Humane Society International, 1255 23rd Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, United states; gro.ish@latrakt

Received 2017 November 2; Accustomed 2018 Apr 24.

Abstract

Simple Summary

The pet overpopulation trouble in the United States has changed significantly since the 1970s. The purpose of this review is to document these changes and propose factors that have been and are currently driving the canis familiaris population dynamics in the U.s.a.. In the 1960s, about one quarter of the domestic dog population was still roaming the streets (whether owned or not) and 10 to 20-fold more dogs were euthanized in shelters compared to the nowadays. We present data from across the United States which support the idea that, along with increased responsible pet ownership behaviors, sterilization efforts in shelters and private veterinary hospitals have played a office driving and sustaining the decline in unwanted animals inbound shelters (and being euthanized). Additionally, information shows that adoption numbers are rising slowly beyond the The states and take become an additional driver of declining euthanasia numbers in the last decade. Nosotros conclude that the cultural shift in how society and pet owners relate to dogs has produced positive shelter trends beyond the decline in intake. The increased level of command and care dog owners provide to their dogs, too as the increasing perception of dogs as family unit members, are all indicators of the changing human-dog human relationship in the US.

Abstruse

Domestic dog direction in the United States has evolved considerably over the final 40 years. This review analyzes available data from the last 30 to 40 years to identify national and local trends. In 1973, The Humane Society of the US (The HSUS) estimated that well-nigh thirteen.5 million animals (64 dogs and cats per 1000 people) were euthanized in the US (virtually 20% of the pet population) and virtually 25% of the canis familiaris population was still roaming the streets. Intake and euthanasia numbers (national and state level) declined rapidly in the 1970s due to a number of factors, including the implementation of shelter sterilization policies, changes in sterilization practices by private veterinarians and the passage of local ordinances implementing differential licensing fees for intact and sterilized pets. By the mid-1980s, shelter intake had declined past about fifty% (The HSUS estimated vii.six–x meg animals euthanized in 1985). Data collected by PetPoint over the past eight years indicate that adoptions increased in the last decade and may have become an additional driver affecting recent euthanasia declines across the United states of america. We doubtable that sterilizations, now office of the standard veterinarian care, and the level of control of pet dogs exercised by pet owners (roaming dogs are now mostly absent in many US communities) played an important part in the cultural shift in the The states, in which a larger proportion of families now regard their pet dogs as "family members".

Keywords: humane dog management, shelter statistics, sterilization, human-canine human relationship

one. Introduction

There has been a lot of public commentary on the evolution of domestic dog direction in the United States but very few analyses of the vast corporeality of relevant information, most of it from "grayness" sources, in the United States. The data available are not considered particularly robust, consisting equally they do of reports by individual shelters and analyses in the "grey" literature (e.g., Shelter Sense Magazine from The Humane Guild of the United states of america (The HSUS), Animal People newsmagazine, etc.), just these information offering of import insights into national sheltering trends. A recent review of the literature on companion beast population demographics (a full of 931 reviews and research reports) finds that the frequency of relevant scientific publications on animal sheltering has increased from 5–10 a year in the 1970s to l or more than a twelvemonth in the terminal decade [1]. However, only a few of these have reported on national or regional shelter trends in the United states.

We aim to remedy this omission in this review. We will incorporate information from diverse sources to construct an analysis of trends in shelter demographics and in US domestic dog populations starting in the 1970s.

Data Sourcing

Equally indicated, reports on US shelter numbers too equally shelter demographic studies in the literature are few and far between, although the number of papers have increased in the concluding thirty years (see Kay et al. 2017 [1]). One of the problems with the bachelor information on shelter intake and outcomes is that it has never` been collected and reported consistently from 1970 to the present. Even data on the number of companion animals in the US is subject to methodological problems. The ii main surveys by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA—surveyed every five years since 1986) and the American Pet Products Clan (APPA—surveyed every two years since 1988) differ significantly in the estimated national populations of companion dogs and cats. There have been several efforts over the by fifty years to collect national shelter data (the most contempo is Shelter Animals Count—https://shelteranimalscount.org/) but none accept succeeded in either producing an accurate number of shelters (physical structures that house animals) in the state or the national intake and outcomes of dogs and cats into these shelters.

Nevertheless, we debate that it is possible to piece together data from various sources (see Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials for more on this issue) including:

• (a)

  private shelters;

• (b)

  previous attempts to rail national shelter trends;

• (c)

  country reports of shelter numbers; other attempts to rail shelter trends;

• (d)

  from the commercial software vendor, PetHealth.

PetHealth's shelter software app, PetPoint, is a free shelter app that besides collects and stores data from participating shelters (organizations that have buildings that house shelter animals) and animal rescues. PetHealth publishes compiled monthly reports of intake and outcomes from approximately half of the entities using the software. Their monthly reports provide what nosotros contend is a reasonably authentic and internally consistent picture of sheltering trends in the USA from 2009 to the present.

Notwithstanding, there are bug with the Petpoint data. Simply relatively few municipal and city shelters (out of an estimated 1400 in the U.s.—estimates from unpublished surveys conducted by The HSUS) apply the Petpoint app because the data on people adopting dogs from the shelter are stored on PetHealth servers and public officials are loath to outsource data collection and storage. Furthermore, the Petpoint data reflect a compilation from 900 to 1300 entities (the number is steadily increasing) although Petpoint has over 2000 users. The reported monthly data are compared to the aforementioned month a twelvemonth before and so a shelter or rescue has to exist using the app for both months in gild to be included in the composite tally. We have "standardized" the monthly data to "correspond" one thousand shelters and rescues (when the number of shelters and rescues for the month is lower than 1000, then the standardized number will be increased and when the composite number reflects more than 1000 entities, the standardized number will be lower). Nosotros practise not know if this "standardization" is valid because we do not know how the entities covered change from month to calendar month. Finally, we presume that the "standardized" data represents approximately 20% of full shelter and rescue intake and outcome. This supposition is based on the trends and national estimates from other sources and is non hands validated. Nosotros intend to keep working on the current data sets and new ones that are beingness produced to produce better national estimates of absolute shelter and rescue intake and outcomes.

While the various data sources vary in their reliability and comprehensiveness, we maintain that it is possible to employ them to construct a picture of national trends from 1970 to the nowadays. It is non possible to determine the causes for those trends from the available data, but we suggest some possible reasons for the huge decline in shelter animal intake in the USA since 1970.

We acknowledge that the data in this review are not standardized across all locations and sources. Still, the trends appear to be more than or less the same on all scales, from individual shelters and from state compilations. We contend that it is non the number from one year to the next, but rather the longer term trends within one scale or location (eastward.g., a single shelter or an individual country) and betwixt different scales or locations (eastward.g., compare trends between individual shelters and states), that provides a reasonably authentic picture of national developments. Further, nosotros believe that all data sources in this review contain their own biases and systemic errors but they produce similar trends over time. As such, we believe the data demonstrate the overall national shelter trend from 1970 onwards in the USA.

two. National Trends in Brute Shelter Demographics from 1970 to 2010

In the USA, a network of beast shelters was established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1910, McCrea [2] reported at that place were around 500 humane societies and SPCAs in the U.s. in September 1908 (humane societies worked on both creature and child protection, SPCAs worked only on animal protection). In 1959, Robert Chenoweth [3], then the President of The HSUS, estimated in that location were merely 350 or so agile shelters in the Usa. This number had grown to effectually 3500 shelters in 3100 counties by 2015 (based on unpublished surveys by The HSUS).

In a 1973 survey of shelters, The HSUS estimated that 13.5 million dogs and cats were euthanized nationwide past shelters. This worked out to around 64 dogs and cats per 1000 people. This total was equal to effectually 20% of the owned domestic dog (about 35 meg) and cat (around xxx million) populations at the fourth dimension [4]. In most shelters and pounds, over 90% of the incoming animals were euthanized and the costs of taking in animals, caring for them for three to vii days so euthanizing them consumed the budgets of animate being control agencies and humane societies. Very piddling money was available to spend on pet sterilization or other preventive programs [5]. Beast control was still traditionally a low budget priority for municipal governments in terms of staffing and enforcement [4] and roaming pets and strays were a serious business organization.

In the early on 1970's this problem was highlighted in a flurry of articles, especially an editorial in Scientific discipline [half-dozen] and a paper in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 1974 by Carl Djerassi [7] (the founder of the birth control pill) and his colleagues. The pet "overpopulation" crisis became a national issue and two meetings by the key stakeholders (including the major national humane and veterinary organizations) in 1974 and 1976 started discussions on more than humane and sustainable solutions to the pet overpopulation upshot. These meetings gave rise to the legislation, didactics, and sterilization (LES) project conceived by Phyllis Wright of The HSUS [8].

All 3 of the major national groups addressing animal sheltering at the time (The HSUS, the American Humane Clan, and the National Animal Control Clan) promoted local ordinances that enforced responsible pet ownership. Basic requirements included the licensing of dogs and cats with tags attached to their collars and, increasingly, a differentiated licensing fee for intact and sterilized pets. Additionally owners were encouraged to control their animals at all times, breeders were to be licensed and field of study to regulations, and there were campaigns to ensure the sterilization of all animals adopted from public and private shelters [8].

The Success of Sterilization and Differentiated Dog Licensing in the United states of america of America

Included in general trends in increased responsible pet buying behaviors were increased sterilization rates for pets, likely a major contributor to the huge decline in shelter euthanasia in the United States. This was facilitated by the establishment of "low-price" sterilization clinics for pets by municipal animate being command and private shelters. Although these clinics performed only a pocket-sized proportion of the sterilizations of owned dogs and cats, we speculate they also led to an increase in sterilizations at private veterinarian clinics, and the institution of "loftier-book, low-cost" specialty veterinarian spay/neuter clinics. Ane of the kickoff of these started in Los Angeles past Dr Mackie in 1976 after the Section of Brute Regulation Services (now Los Angeles Animal Services) set up a [nine] municipal dispensary in 1971 [iv] (encounter Effigy 1 and Figure ii). Co-ordinate to dog licensing data [10], only 10.9% of the licensed dogs in the City of LA were sterilized in 1971. However, in just a few years, this percentage had jumped to l% (it is now nearly 100%). From an test of the number of dogs that would have had to be sterilized in Los Angeles, and the number of sterilizations actually performed in the municipal clinic, it appears that 80% or more than of the sterilizations from 1970 to 1980 were performed by individual veterinary practices [xi,12] rather than past the municipal dispensary (which averaged around 10,000 sterilizations a year from 1975 onwards).

Intake and Euthanasia of Dogs and Cats by Los Angeles Animal Services [10,xiii,xiv,fifteen,16].

Licensed dogs in the Metropolis of Los Angeles and the Percentage Sterilized [10,xiii,14,fifteen,16] 2000 data point from McKee, 2000 [17].

While there were no controlled studies of the impact of low-toll pet sterilizations past municipal, shelter and private veterinary clinics on animal intake and euthanasia, at that place were large declines in animal intake (and euthanasia) in many communities during the 1970s. In fact, the typical trend in brute intake and euthanasia featured a big decline (25–40%) in the 1970s, a levelling off in the 1980s, followed by a slower just steady reject from 1990 onwards [18]. Despite the expansion of low cost and high-book sterilization clinics, Marsh (2010) [v] reports that the overwhelming majority of spay/neuter surgeries in the U.s. are performed at private veterinary hospitals. While targeted subsidy programs are an essential component of an effective community dog population command plan, individual veterinary clinics sterilize an estimated five cats and dogs for every one sterilized through a shelter or subsidy program [v]. In 2005, an estimated 11,000,000 pet sterilizations were performed past individual veterinarian hospitals, while two,112,000 were performed through shelters, spay/neuter programs, and feral cat sterilization programs. The high proportion of veterinarian clients neutering pets reflects successful efforts past municipal authorities, veterinarians and fauna welfare shelters in persuading owners to accept their pets sterilized [5].

From 1980 to 1985, The HSUS found that the number of dogs and cats handled by shelters declined by an average of 12% in shelters in communities that imposed differential licensing fees in which owners of unsterilized pets pay a college fee to license their pet [4]. In a 1982 survey of shelters (a follow-up from the 1973 survey), The HSUS estimated that the canis familiaris and cat euthanasia figure had fallen to 7.6–10 million, and many shelters reported declines in animals handled in the 1980′s despite considerable growth in the homo populations in their communities. Rowan and Williams (1987) [4] concluded that the pet "overpopulation" problem (i.due east., the euthanasia of animals in shelters) decreased from xx% of the total pet population to around ten% of the owned domestic dog and cat population being euthanized nationally in the decade of the 1980s. Figure 3 and Effigy 4 below illustrate these trends in canis familiaris and cat shelter intakes and subsequent euthanasia rates.

Change in domestic dog intake and euthanasia at Peninsula Humane Order (the main shelter in San Mateo County, CA, USA) from 1970 to 2006 and in San Mateo County betwixt 1997 to 2015 [13].

Figures for the graph beneath are based on crude estimates of the number of dogs and cats euthanized per 1000 people in shelters in the U.s.a. [4,25]. The more recent estimates are supported past more robust raw data sets fatigued from Clifton (2014) [26] and PetPoint sheltering reports [27].

While the reasons for the declines in the 1970s are unclear and perforce speculative, information technology appears that legislation, education, and sterilization (LES) programs had some impact [4]). Various reports have concluded that the drive to sterilize pet dogs and cats and, more recently, stray cats has been a major cistron in the reject in shelter euthanasia (e.one thousand., [xviii,19,20]). There were farther declines in intake and euthanasia after the 1970s and 1980s. The chart beneath (Figure three), showing data from Peninsula Humane Society in San Mateo County, California (from 1970 to 1994) and from California state records of shelter intake for the whole of San Mateo county from 1997 to 2015, illustrates some of the changes that were occurring in the 1990s and the 2000s. After levelling off for a few years, domestic dog intake began to decline again in the late 1980s. The number of loftier-volume sterilization clinics and initiatives has been increasing beyond the country to address pockets of poverty where canis familiaris and true cat sterilization rates remain low (e.1000., run across [5,18,21,22,23,24]).

Overall euthanasia of dogs and cats in Usa shelters has undergone a steady and rather dramatic refuse (Figure iv). However, the earlier data points are not peculiarly robust. The 1973 and 1982 points were based on surveys of shelter operations around the Us by staff of The HSUS. The 1990 and 2000 datapoints are based on analyses and estimates past a pocket-sized group of individuals, including one of the authors of this commodity (ANR), Merritt Clifton and Phil Arkow. The concluding set up of datapoints (2009 to the present) are based on PetPoint reports of monthly intake and outcome totals for around one chiliad or more than shelters and rescue operations.

Marsh (2010) [5] also suggests that differential licensing (dissimilar fees for sterilized and intact pets) has contributed to reducing U.S. shelter animal intakes in contempo times. Between 1993 and 2006, after a $45 surcharge was imposed on licenses for intact pets in King County, Washington, the number of cats and dogs admitted to Male monarch County Beast Services shelters dropped by 14.half-dozen% despite a 21.1% increase in the canton'southward population during this menstruum [5]. More than fourscore% of cities and counties in the United States now impose a differential license surcharge [v]. Other programs to combat pet overpopulation include designated spay-neuter practices in stationary and mobile clinics, field operations, shelter services, voucher systems, in-clinic programs provided through private practitioners, and partnerships with veterinary colleges [28]. A hallmark of these programs is the provision of high quality surgeries to large numbers of patients on a regular ground [28]. In some states, such as New Jersey and Massachusetts, the differential dog licensing schemes and low toll spay and neuter surgeries are coordinated and encouraged by state government or by state-broad partnership between the veterinary association and fauna shelters.

iii. Contempo National Trends (Post 2010)

Adoptions became a gene driving boosted decreases in national shelter euthanasia starting around or just before 2010. Prior to this, shelter euthanasia numbers tracked the intake of dogs and cats quite closely [5]. But, from 2010 onwards, it appears that increased adoptions also started to have an effect on euthanasia rates. If ane compares the number of dogs adopted and euthanized between 2009 and 2017, equally a proportion of domestic dog intake numbers (Figure v), adoption (ascension) and euthanasia (declining) trends accept visibly separated. Regression analysis shows that at that place is a statistically significant negative human relationship betwixt the proportion adopted and euthanized (Rⁱⁱ = 0.64, p < 0.0001) although the actual increase in adoptions is only about 25% of the decline in euthanasia over the same menstruum. We would also note that the Advertizement Council has been running a national campaign promoting pet adoption since 2009 (https://www.adcouncil.org/Our-Campaigns/Family-Community/Shelter-Pet-Adoption), and together with advertising of pets for adoption by shelters and rescue groups, this campaign may also be influencing shelter adoption numbers since 2009. There is too a negative relationship between the proportion of dogs returned to their owners and euthanasia (R² = 0.45, p < 0.0001) however not as strongly correlated but still statistically meaning (encounter Supplementary Materials for details). Microchips for pet identification became available for use in USA in the mid-1980s but the microchip market place in the The states has suffered because some companies use ISO compliant chips and some practise non. There is now a "universal" scanner that can notice whatsoever of the microchips in use but competition between competing standards held back the uptake and use of microchips in the U.s.a. [29]. (run across August 2009 commodity, Due east. Lau: http://news.vin.com/vinnews.aspx?articleId=13737).

Percentage of dogs adopted, RTO (Returned to Owner) and euthanized (of total domestic dog intake) nationwide based on PetPoint data (from 900–1200 shelters and rescue arrangement) September 2009–September 2017 [27].

We have causeless that the PetPoint data (standardized to be representative of 1000 entities over the period from 2009 to 2017) cover about xx% of all shelter and rescue operation intake and outcome in the United states of america. Therefore, the full number of dogs handled across the U.s.a. is around 5-fold the "standardized" PetPoint numbers. (Note: all the estimates of national shelter intake and consequence are subject to meaning uncertainty. However, a contempo survey by Woodruff and Smith (see below) produces estimates that are in the range of those produced by our proposition that national numbers are roughly the standardized PetPoint estimates times a gene of five.) Other characteristics, such every bit seasonal variations, are likewise captured in the PetPoint data (see Supplemental Materials).

Woodruff and Smith (2016) [xxx] generated similar estimates (to these estimates from the Petpoint dataset—Table 1) of national shelter dog intake and outcome data for 2016. Their estimates are based on phone surveys of 2862 animal shelters in 49 states (producing a response rate of fourteen.4%—or 413 shelters). Woodruff and Smith estimated that v,532,904 (95% CI = five,003,528–half-dozen,169,579) dogs entered US shelters in 2016. (In order to be identified as a shelter the entity: (1) must accept dogs; (2) must adopt dogs to the public and (three) must house animals in a shelter building). Based on the shelter data submitted to Pet Point in 2016 we guess that about 4,171,017 dogs entered shelters or animal rescues in 2016. This guess is 25% lower than that given past Woodruff and Smith (2016) but given the very different assumptions involved in arriving at these two totals, nosotros consider their numbers to be in acceptable agreement with our estimate. The major disagreement between the ii approaches (Table 1) concerns the number of shelters in the U.s.. Farther analysis of this difference is provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Tabular array 1

Calculations based on information presented by Woodruff & Smith at the 2017 North American eterinary Conference in Florida and PetPoint data indexed for g organizations.

Topics	Woodruff & Smith (2016)			PetPoint (2016)
Number	Full Number	Lower 95%	Upper 95%
Shelters	7076	6399	7890	NA
Total Dogs Entering	5,532,904	v,003,528	6,169,579	4,171,017
Adopted Dogs	2,628,112	ii,376,660	2,930,531	two,302,829
Dogs Returned to Possessor	969,443	876,689	ane,080,998	591,375
Dogs Transferred	778,385	703,911	867,955	642,856
Dogs Euthanized	776,970	702,631	866,366	592,255

But regardless of this discrepancy, we believe that Woodruff and Smith's independent estimates support our claim that the PetPoint dataset provides a good source to runway the overall shelter trends in the United States from 2009 onwards.

Many approaches take been taken to constitute data collection systems and bring together shelters nationwide (see https://www.aspca.org/well-nigh-u.s.a./aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-data-collection-reporting) simply none produced a widely agreed estimate of national numbers for shelter intake and outcomes. A new and promising platform is Shelter Animals Count. The starting time annual report was published in 2016 and produced numbers for 2255 participating shelters and rescues, bookkeeping for 1,422,671 dogs and one,259,381 cats (total cats and dogs: ii,682,052) needing new homes or looking for their pet owners [31]. We hope that this data base of operations will entice enough bodily shelters (who handle 80+% of all animate being intake) to sign up to produce valuable information and datasets on shelter statistics in the coming years. A preliminary examination of the Florida organizations who have signed up indicates that, as of the end of 2016, merely nearly 30% of the state'southward shelters have joined (the balance are rescue organizations).

four. Regional and Land Trends in Shelter Demographics

Dog demographics and rates of ownership vary significantly between states in the Us. Statewide shelter numbers and trends are difficult to obtain and mostly unavailable, hence shelter and euthanasia trends are simply available for a few states (Tabular array 2). Withal, relatively reliable dog population numbers are generated past the AVMA and are available for 48 states. (The AVMA has traditionally sent out around lxxx,000 questionnaires to a sample of households drawn from a console of 400,000 who take been compiled by a commercial company and who have agreed to participate in surveys.) While New Hampshire and New Bailiwick of jersey take depression intake and euthanasia rates and accept significantly lower numbers of stray dogs, other states, especially in the Due south, study much higher numbers. Clifton (2014) [26] has connected to get together shelter information annually over decades and adds some numbers to the perception of a Northeast region with very few adoptable dogs in shelters and an ongoing dog overpopulated S (Table 2). United states in Clifton's discussion are not randomly selected. He employs a convenience sample of all u.s. with available shelter data. All the same, his dataset includes states and shelters representing almost one third of the homo population in the Usa (totaling 308.7 1000000 people in 2010) and provides an overview of the different situations beyond the country. New Hampshire euthanized 0.26 dogs per 1000 people in 2012 whereas North Carolina euthanized almost 25 times more than dogs per 1000 people (half-dozen.45 dogs per 100 humans) in 2013. Nevada euthanized 21 times more dogs (5.39 dogs per 100 humans) and fifty-fifty California euthanized 18 times more dogs (4.69 dogs per 100 humans) than New Hampshire (Table 2 [eighteen]). The Northeast has relatively depression dog ownership rates compared to other regions of the country (Table 2).

Table ii

Number of dogs euthanized per one thousand people were calculated based per State where official numbers were reported (raw information retrieved from [26,32,33]).

Country	Year	Dogs Euthanized in Shelters	Human Population (2010)	Dogs/yard People (2011)	Dogs Euthanized per 1000 People	% of Pet Dogs in Land Euthanized in Shelters
California	2011	176,907	37,253,956	177	4.69	2.65%
Colorado	2013	6968	v,029,196	264	1.36	0.52%
Delaware	2011	2012	897,934	180	2.22	ane.23%
Maine	2012	644	ane,328,361	226	0.48	0.21%
Maryland	2011	10,477	5,773,552	157	one.8	1.15%
Michigan	2013	22,909	9,883,640	206	2.32	1.xiii%
Nevada	2011	xiv,679	2,700,551	212	5.39	two.54%
New Hampshire	2012	346	1,316,470	161	0.26	0.16%
New Jersey	2011	6023	8,791,894	152	0.68	0.45%
Due north Carolina	2013	62,269	9,535,483	261	half-dozen.45	2.47%
Virginia	2013	16,519	8,001,024	210	ii.04	0.97%
Total for 11 States		296,867	ninety,512,061		iii.28
Estimated USA Totals	2010	1,723,039	309,350,000	225	5.57	2.48%
(from PetPoint & AVMA information)

4.one. Land Trends

4.one.1. New Jersey

In 1984, the land of New Jersey was the first in the state to address its pet overpopulation problem with a statewide low-income, depression-cost, spay/neuter programme [34] and continues to provide these services. The number of dogs impounded dropped by 75% from 1984 to 2014, while the number of dogs euthanized has dropped by over 90% over the same catamenia (Effigy half-dozen and Figure 7) (numbers provided by New Jersey Department of Health, Infectious and Zoonotic Diseases, various). Accented adoption numbers take stayed relatively stable over the past three decades but the percentage of intake adopted rose from 20% in 1984 to about 35% in 1991, stayed relatively stable at 35% from 1991 to 2005 then started ascension and had reached 52% by 2016. Marsh [5] suggests that intake is the chief driver in a declining euthanasia trend, withal, if we look at shelter trends equally proportions of intake information technology becomes clear that adoptions have started to become another primary driver in New Bailiwick of jersey in the concluding decade (Figure 6). Effigy 7 provides a nautical chart of absolute intake and effect numbers which signal that adoptions take not increased in absolute terms just equally intake numbers decline, the % of dogs adopted will increase.

Shelter dog adoptions and euthanasia equally proportions of intake too as total canis familiaris intake, based on data provided past the Land of New Jersey.

New Jersey Devious cat and dogs survey results 1984 to 2014.

4.i.2. California

An analysis of dog shelter intake and euthanasia in California from 1997 through 2013 indicates great variation in shelter trends from canton to county [13]. Some counties achieve depression rates of shelter euthanasia while others are closer to the national average or even college (Figure viii and Figure ix). The two charts below show the charge per unit of dog intake and euthanasia per 1000 people for Fresno and San Diego respectively. Both shelters have experienced a similar gradient in decrease of intake and euthanasia per 1000 people over the years. Nonetheless, Fresno's euthanasia rates are still high at around 12.8 (per thou people) compared to San Diego at effectually 1.5 dogs per chiliad people. In fact, all the littoral counties in California tend to have depression euthanasia rates (San Francisco and San Luis Obispo are the lowest at under 2 per 1000) while rates in the inland counties are much college. It is not articulate why this difference exists although the coastal counties tend to be wealthier than the inland counties.

Fresno, California intake and euthanasia per thousand people.

San Diego, California intake and euthanasia per grand people.

Although the quality of the collected data for counties in California varies, we believe that there are enough years of data to discern trends in brute intake and euthanasia (Figure 10) (Annotation: the data in Figure 10 is a composite of values adult from trend lines calculated individually for all 58 counties in California from reports on shelter intake and outcomes produced by the California Department of Health and Man Services (run across [15], annually since 1997)).

California dog shelter trends per 1000 people living in California.

As in other states and across the country, there has been a significant decline in dogs entering shelters (per yard people) and in the euthanasia rate (Effigy ten).

4.ane.3. Michigan

Since 2000, every Michigan shelter has to be licensed and has to report their shelter data annually under the Pet Store, Canis familiaris Pounds, and Animal Shelters Human action, 1996. Based on the annual reports published by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Evolution, an average of 85% of Michigan shelters have reported their statistics in the concluding years. Figure 11 illustrates the downward tendency in intake and euthanasia. In 2003, Bartlett et al. [35] used the aforementioned Michigan Country law to obtain data from all Michigan shelters. They found that 5.65 dogs per 1000 people were euthanized in 2003 similar to the five.69 dogs per 1000 people in 2005 (Effigy eleven). Since 2006 the euthanasia rate has been falling and reached 2.iii dogs per chiliad in 2013 [36].

Intake and euthanasia per yard people living in Michigan (raw data retrieved from: [26]).

4.ane.4. Ohio

Lord et al., (2006) [37] at Ohio State Veterinarian School surveyed animal care and sheltering facilities across Ohio in 1996 and in 2004. They reported the following trends (Tabular array iii) in the "per 1000 humans" benchmarking statistic for the whole country.

Table 3

Ohio survey results.

Topic	1996	2004
Dogs Handled/thou people	19.14	fifteen.59
Dogs Euthanized/1000 people	11.l	6.85
Total Animals Handled/1000 people	29.41	26.84
Total Animals Euthanized/k people	18.73	14.89

Dog euthanasia decreased from 1996 to 2004.

In full general, data from private states combined with the other data sources employed in this review support the results of national surveys and estimates.

five. Responsible Pet Buying Developments in the United States

Another factor affecting the pass up in intake and euthanasia numbers is the cultural shift in how pet owners relate to their pets. Responsible pet ownership and the perception that dogs are part of the family is a concept that has been growing over the last 30 years. In the 1970s, when humane campaigns to address the pet overpopulation result started in the Usa, nigh 25% of the total canis familiaris population was estimated to consist of street dogs (roaming the streets where ownership status was unclear—[38]) and millions of dogs and cats were killed in the shelters every yr [4]. Today, in that location are very few "street" dogs and the euthanasia rate of dogs in shelters has fallen past more 90% even though the total pet dog population has doubled by comparing information (meet [4,33]). We argue that this change is one of the indicators that Us pet owner relations with their dogs has inverse. However, we have to rely entirely on indirect indicators to document the change in human-dog relationship considering there are no reliable research reports documenting this change over time (e.thousand., encounter [39] as an case of the type of measure that could have reliably demonstrated the change). 1 possible time-series dataset that could be employed to back up the opening sentence conclusion is the biennial survey by the American Pet Products Clan [twoscore].

In the past decade, there have been significant changes in the source of pet dogs coming into the home [40] (Effigy 12). The per centum of owned dogs that were adopted from shelters and rescues has increased from xv% to over 35% in just 10 years (which provides some other source supporting the Petpoint trends) while the percentage of pet dogs bred at home has dropped from 5% to nether 1% over the same flow. If one looks at the percentage of dogs that were conspicuously caused purposefully (adopted or purchased) versus acquired serendipitously (from a friend or relative or every bit a stray), and then the per centum acquired purposefully has increased from 46% to 62% in ten years while the proportion acquired serendipitously has decreased from around 37% to 26% over the aforementioned time flow.

Conquering of dogs in the United States [40].

The development of the pet industry likewise reflects the irresolute dog-human relationship (see Figure 13). The Bureau of Economic Analysis of the US Department of Commerce [41] produces monthly, quarterly and annual tables of consumer expenditures. The information publically bachelor on the web site (see Gross domestic product and Personal Income, Underlying Particular, Section 2 (Personal Consumption Expenditures)) reports expenditures on Pets and Related Products (line 126) and Veterinarian and other services for pets (line 225). The graph in Figure 13 shows the relative level of personal expenditures on these two categories compared to total consumer expenditures. The relative amount spent on pets and on veterinary services has increased by v-fold (pet products) and three.3-fold (veterinary services) since 1959 just the growth has not been uniform over the last threescore years. At that place was no relative increment in expenditures on pets from 1975 to 2000 but both veterinarian expenditures and spending on pet products has been growing faster than general consumer spending since the beginning of the century. These increases are another indirect mensurate of a growing zipper to pets in the United States.

Expenditures related to dog keeping and veterinary care [39] (Annotation: the straight lines in the graph are non calculated trend lines but are included to distinguish the different periods of relative expenditure growth).

Owning a dog has become a conscious selection rather than incidental and with this shift we see a changing relationship. One of the first indicators is the level of solitude of companion dogs (from free roaming to confined and clearly associated with a household). This happened around the same fourth dimension that sterilization became function of the basic care. Following this change, dogs moved into homes and became identified as more than formal members of the family. One possible indicator of this changing relationship is the proportion of dogs sleeping within at night. (APPA surveys (Figure 14) are more specific in that they ask if dog owners permit their dogs to sleep in their beds and not simply inside.)

Where domestic dog owners keep their dogs at night and where they sleep [38].

Finally, in 2007, Harris [42] conducted a poll of pets as family members in US households and has repeated the poll three times since then (in 2011, 2012 and 2015). In general, the vast majority of pets are viewed as family members, growing from 88% in 2007 to 95% in 2015 (Effigy fifteen) in this survey. Additionally, over 45% buy their dogs a altogether present and 71% share their bed with their dogs, which indicates a strong emotional attachment to their dogs and is higher than the APPA survey results.

6. Discussion

Domestic dog management in the The states has evolved considerably over the concluding twoscore years. While programs were devised and implemented in the absenteeism of much data [43,44], the possible effects of interventions may however be tracked. Pet dog and cat sterilization is widely regarded as 1 of the major reasons for the decline in shelter intake and euthanasia from 1970 onwards, despite the doubling of pet dog and cat populations. We speculate that a combination of factors have markedly decreased shelter intake and euthanasia and these include increased responsible pet buying behaviors such as sterilization, dog containment, and pet identification. Increased rates of dog sterilization take been facilitated past differential fees for licensing of sterilized dogs, increased availability of low-cost pet sterilization through municipal and animal welfare agencies, high volume specialty spay-neuter veterinarian clinics, and incorporation of sterilization as standard veterinarian care past private practitioners. Increased levels of pet identification have occurred through licensing compliance and microchipping. Changes in dog-human relationships and increased expenditure on dogs are also likely reflecting a growth in responsible buying behaviors. In addition, increased numbers of dogs adopted from shelters, and a greater proportion of the owned dog population acquired by adoption, appears to be contributing to decreased euthanasia rates since 2005 [20].

Before 1970, the sterilization of pets by veterinary practices was relatively rare. This evidently changed very quickly in the 1970s. During the 1970s, there was too a substantial decrease in the shelter intake of dogs in Los Angeles and across the land. An internal and unpublished written report past The HSUS looked at shelter intake trends for several hundred shelters in the United states during the 1980s and found that a declining intake was associated with differential licensing fees (the owners of intact animals had to pay a higher annual dog license fee). We suspect that, in addition to increased responsible pet ownership behaviors, these differential dog licensing rates combined with irresolute veterinary practitioner behavior (it has been reported that private practices carry out 80% or more than of domestic dog and cat sterilizations annually [45]), contributed to the intake declines in the 1970s and early on 1980s.

Shelter animal intake levelled off in the 1980s but dog intake began to decline again in the belatedly 1980s to mid-1990s. We do not know why this occurred but nosotros speculate that some other shift in veterinary private do at the kickoff of the 1990s (requiring pet owners to "opt out" of sterilizations as part of responsible puppy care) was one correspondent to the reduction in shelter intake from the 1990s onwards. This attitude change toward sterilization in the individual veterinarian sector and the ongoing expansion of depression-cost customs sterilization efforts (peculiarly in low-income neighborhoods in contempo years), may have sustained the declining trend in shelter intake (and euthanasia). At that place are likely other factors involved in the decline (such every bit more than responsible dog ownership, including increased containment and identification of dogs through licensing and microchipping) simply there have been very few attempts to place such factors and even fewer attempts to quantify them. Data shows that, across the US, canis familiaris (and true cat) shelter intake connected to pass up despite an increasing pet population.

Today, shelter beast euthanasia is over ten fold lower than in the 1970s. While declining intake appears to have been strongly associated with declining euthanasia up until 2010 (e.1000., [19,46,47,48,49]), an increase in shelter dog adoptions has likewise go an important driver in the final decade (see Figure five).

At that place are still considerable differences between states but the general national trend is clear. The level of control of pet dogs has increased steadily from the 1970s to the present. The proportion of dogs allowed to roam free on the streets is negligible in most communities and a larger proportion of families regard their pet dogs as "family unit members".

In summary, campaigns to improve dog owner beliefs in the terminal forty years have created the changed dynamic we see between humans and dogs. Shelters can focus on adoptions rather than providing humane euthanasia and canis familiaris owners have largely adopted a pet intendance regime that includes sterilization and licensing, and solitude of pet dogs. This progress from relatively uncontrolled to controlled dog population is something we doubtable is a trend which occurring globally even in countries with big street canis familiaris populations. This review and the Usa model itself can therefore potentially provide a template for other countries.

vii. Conclusions

This review has covered a complex mélange of different data sets and has attempted to describe, by referencing these data, what has happened to dog management in the United States from around 1970 to the present. At that place take been a few attempts to compile a scholarly review of all the data (east.yard., Marsh, 2012 [45]) in one place, merely the field is hampered by the lack of an accurate data set up describing the U.s. animal shelter world over the past fifty years. At that place have been very few attempts to undertake a scholarly test of national trends, probably because of the lack of what would exist considered "reliable" data. We accept chosen to utilise near of the available information (with some exceptions) to construct an overall view of the trends in dog shelter intake and euthanasia from 1970 to the present in the Us. We concord with Marsh (2012) [45] that the dominant influence on shelter euthanasia from 1970 to 2010 was the declining intake of dogs into shelters in the United states of america. As intake declined, so did canis familiaris euthanasia rates. However, this changed effectually 2010 (or perhaps earlier—around 2005—encounter Figure 6) when shelter adoptions of dogs diverged from the intake trend. This may have been assisted past the 2009 Ad Council entrada to increase shelter dog adoptions (still ongoing). In the absence of careful data collection and inquiry, nosotros will non be able to identify what is driving electric current trends.

Acknowledgments

The review covers thirty-five years of data collection and analysis during which ANR has been employed by The HSUS and Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine (from 1983–1997). The data used in this report has been collected with the support of a diverseness of grants and salary support over the years.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/8/five/68/s1, Tabular array S1: Source of data used in review, S2: More on the Petpoint dataset, S3: Comparison of different national dog population and shelter number estimates, S4: Variance of total canis familiaris populations measured confronting total homo populations in the USA and selected states

Author Contributions

Andrew N. Rowan and Tamara Kartal analyzed the data and wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of involvement.

References

ane. Kay A., Coe J.B., Pearl D., Young I. A scoping review of published research on the population dynamicsand control practices of companion animals. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017;144:40–52. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.05.006. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. McCrea R.C. The Humane Movement: A Descriptive Survey. RareBooksClub.com; Memphis, TN, U.s.: 1910. No. 179.three M2. [Google Scholar]

3. Chenoweth R.J. The President's Address at the Annual Feast. Nov, 1959.

4. Rowan A.N., Williams J. The success of companion animal direction programs: a review. Anthrozoös. 1987;i:110–122. doi: 10.2752/089279388787058623. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Marsh P. Replacing Myth with Math: Using Bear witness-Based Programs to Eradicate Shelter Overpopulation. Town and Country Reprographics, Incorporated; Hold, NH, USA: 2010. [Google Scholar]

6. Feldmann G. The problem of urban dogs. Science. 1974;185:903. doi: ten.1126/science.185.4155.903. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Djerassi C., Israel A., Jochle Westward. Planned parenthood for pets? Bull. Atom. Sci. 1973;29:ten–xix. doi: 10.1080/00963402.1973.11455434. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Unti B.O. Protecting all Animals. A Fifty Year History of The Humane Society of the United states. Humane Society Press; Washington, DC, U.s.a.: 2004. [Google Scholar]

10. Rush R.I. Letter to Phyllis Wright of the HSUS. Aug 25, 1981. Alphabetic character.

12. Blitz R.I. Animal Direction and Population Control: What Progress Have We Made? Wilson, A.One thousand., Rowan, A.Northward., Eds. Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, N.; Grafton, MA, USA: 1985. City of Los Angeles Creature Care and Command; pp. 55–58. [Google Scholar]

xiii. Anonymous. LA Animal Services Statistical Reports 2007–2017 and from Annual Reports of Local Rabies Control Activities, California Department of Wellness and Man Services from 1997 to the Present. [(accessed on 24 April 2018)]; Bachelor online: https://world wide web.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/LocalRabiesControlActivities.aspx (the reports for the years from 1997 to 2009 are no longer available on the website)

fourteen. Anonymous. Working Together to Brand Los Angeles the Safest Big City in the U.Southward. for Our Pets. Los Angeles Animals Services; Los Angeles, CA, The states: 2006. Annual Report 2005/6. [Google Scholar]

fifteen. Bearding. "Spay Clinics: Benefaction or Boondoggle?" Staff Study. Mod. Vet. Pract. 1973;54:23–29. [Google Scholar]

16. Anonymous. "Spay Clinics: The Other Side of the Story", Staff Study. Modernistic. Vet. Pract. 1973;55:23–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. McKee D. An Analysis of the City of Los Angeles Pet Population and Attitudes towards Pet Adoption and Spay/Neuter. Humane America Animal Foundation; Los Angeles, CA, U.s.a.: 2000. [Google Scholar]

18. Zawistowski S., Morris J., Salman One thousand.D., Ruch-Gallie R. Population dynamics, overpopulation, and the welfare of companion animals: New insights on old and new data. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1998;1:193–206. doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0103_1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Scarlett J.M., Salman M.D., New J.C., Jr., Kass P.H. Reasons for relinquishment of companion animals in U.S. animal shelters: Selected wellness and personal problems. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1999;ii:41–57. doi: x.1207/s15327604jaws0201_4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Decker Sparks J.L., Camacho B., Tedeschi P., Morris K.Due north. Race and ethnicity are not primary determinants in utilizing veterinary services in underserved communities in the United States. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2017:one–10. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1378578. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Morris K.N., Wolf J.L., Gies D.L. Trends in intake and outcome data for animate being shelters in Colorado, 2000 to 2007. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2011;238:329–336. doi: x.2460/javma.238.3.329. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Clancy East.A., Rowan A.N. Companion Animate being Demographics in the Usa: A Historical Perspective, In the Country of the Animals II. The Humane Society of the U.s.a.; Washington DC, USA: 2003. [Google Scholar]

28. Looney A.L., Bohling M.W., Bushby P.A., Howe L.M., Griffin B., Levy J.Thou., Eddlestone S.1000., Weedon J.R., Appel L.D., Rigdon-Brestle Y.1000., et al. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians veterinary medical care guidelines for spay-neuter programs. Vet. Med. Today Spe. Rep. JAVMA. 2008;233:1. doi: 10.2460/javma.233.1.74. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Woodruff Thousand.A., Smith D.R. An Estimate of the Number of Dogs in US Shelters; Proceedings of the NAVC Briefing Small Animals Edition Volume 31; Orlando, FL, USA. 4–8 February 2017. [Google Scholar]

33. American Veterinarian Medical Association (AVMA) Pet Survey. American Veterinary Medical Association; Schaumburg, IL, Usa: 2012. [Google Scholar]

34. Secovich S.J. Master's Thesis. Public Policy and Management, University of Southern Maine; Portland, ME, USA: 2003. Case Report: Companion Beast Over-Population Programs in New Bailiwick of jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine and a New Plan for Maine. [Google Scholar]

35. Bartlett P.C., Bartlett A., Walshaw S., Halstead Southward. Rates of euthanasia and adoption for dogs and cats in Michigan fauna shelters. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2005;8:97–104. doi: x.1207/s15327604jaws0802_2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Lord L.K., Wittum T.East., Ferketich A.Thou., Funk J.A., Rajala-Schultz P., Kauffman R.K. Demographic trends for animal care and control agencies in Ohio from 1996 to 2004. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2006;229:48–54. doi: ten.2460/javma.229.ane.48. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Schneider R., Vaida Chiliad.L. Survey of canine and feline populations: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, 1970. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1975;166:481–486. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Johnson T.P., Garrity T.F., Stallones L. Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington attachment to pets scale (LAPS) Anthrozoös. 1992;five:160–175. doi: 10.2752/089279392787011395. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

twoscore. American Pet Products Association (APPA) APPA National Pet Owner's Survey. American Pet Products Clan; Greenwich, CT, Usa: 2017. [Google Scholar]

41. U.s. Department of Commerce. [(accessed on xxx October 2017)]; Available online: https://www.bea.gov/

43. Patronek G., Zawistowski S. The Value of Data. Editors' introduction to Neidhart and Boyd. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2002;5.three:171–174. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0503_01. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Rowan A.North. Shelters and Pet Overpopulation: A Statistical Black Hole. Anthrozoös. 1992;5.three:140–143. doi: 10.2752/089279392787011430. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

46. New J.C., Jr., Salman Thousand.D., Rex One thousand., Scarlett J.K., Kass P.H., Hutchinson J.M. Characteristics of shelter-relinquished animals and their owners compared with animals and their owners in U.South. pet-owning households. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2000;3:179–201. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0303_1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. DiGiacomo N., Arluke A., Patronek G. Surrendering pets to shelters: The relinquisher's perspective. Anthrozoös. 1998;eleven:41–51. doi: 10.1080/08927936.1998.11425086. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Salman M.D., New J.C., Jr., Scarlett J., Kass P., Ruch-Gallie R., Hetts S. Man and animal factors related to the relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animate being shelters in the United States. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1998;one:207–226. doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0103_2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Salman M.D., Hutchinson J., Ruch-Gallie R., Kogan L., New J.C., Jr., Kass P.H., Scarlett J.M. Behavioral reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2000;3:93–106. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0302_2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

---

Articles from Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Found (MDPI)

---

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5981279/

Posted by: eppersonourthe46.blogspot.com

Share this post