San Diego Study: Analysis and Discussion
The purpose of this survey was to see if San Diego County has an animal population problem and, if so, to pinpoint the source(s). This done, it is then possible to target solutions.
In addition to learning from the survey of this community, it is possible to learn from national trends and from successes and failures of other communities.
Pet ownership distribution
Nationally, 31.7% of households own cats, 37.7% own dogs and 15.3% own both dogs and cats. There is also a national trend of increasing cat ownership and decreasing dog ownership.[3]
San Diego County has a lower pet owning population than the national projections would predict, with half of the County owning no pets at all. The NPA survey of Santa Clara County (SCC) also showed pet ownership lower than the national projections, with 51.3% owning no pets, 19.4% owning cats, 18.5% owning dogs and 10.8% owning both.[4]
Roaming Cats
Good Samaritans, those households which feed cats they don't own, comprise a sizeable 9.0% of all households in SDC. This was very similar to the finding in SCC, where 10.0% of all households fed roaming cats.
As stated in the previous section, these roaming cats make up 35.7% of the entire known SDC cat population. That number itself is enough to bring pause, but when it is realized this percentage must, by its very nature, represent the lowest end of the population, the significance becomes staggering.
Roaming cats are generally not spayed or neutered. They reproduce at will. They do not have medical care and do not get vaccinations of any kind.
Gender distribution
In a general discussion of an animal population, one would assume 50% males and 50% females, with perhaps a small deviation to more females. The dog population fell into this pattern.
However, as discussed above, the cat gender ratio changes over time. By the age of ten, 70% of the owned cats are female.
To look for a possible explanation, the ratios of sexes were compared to how the cats were obtained. The theory was, perhaps some of the stray females were finding owners. There was no significant difference. See Chart Three
CHART THREE.
Sex Ratio in Owned Cats by Age
----------------------------------------------------
Age | Males | Females | Unknown
----------------------------------------------------
Under 4 mos. | 43% | 52% | 5%
4 mos to 1 yr | 40% | 60% |
1 yr to 5 yrs | 38% | 62% |
5 yrs to 10 yrs | 37% | 63% |
Over 10 yrs | 31% | 69% |
-----------------------------------------------------
Although the information was not included in the study, so this is purely speculation, males may not be as long lived as females. One reason may be that males are much more likely to suffer from Feline Urologic Syndrome, which can be deadly if not detected early. Another reason may be that male cats are more likely to mark territory by spraying pungent urine. This is generally undesirable behavior, and may cause some owners to euthanize the cats for behavior "problems" or to turn the animal loose.
It should be noted that neutered males are far less likely to spray than intact males, and cats neutered at a young age (before they begin to spray) also are unlikely to spray.
Gender ratios are significant because the number of females determine the number of litters. One female can have only one litter at a time, whereas a male can have many. In a population of seven males and seven females, there will be seven litters; and, in a population of one male and twenty females, there will be twenty litters.
Purebred population
According to John Mandeville, Vice President of the American Kennel Club
(AKC), there are twelve million AKC registered dogs, and about another twelve
million that are eligible for registration. AKC accounts for about 65% of all
purebred dog registrations. Eleven other dog registries hold the additional
six to eight million registrations. The total purebred dog population is
between 30 to 32 million dogs. Mandeville states the Pet Food Institute
estimates there are a total of 50 to 52 million dogs in the USA. Purebred
dogs make up 60% of the country's dog population.
On the other hand, according to the Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc. (CFA),
three percent of the nation's cats are purebred. CFA is the oldest and
largest registering body of purebred cats in the United States. Their
estimate is based on CFA registry alone. There are, however, other cat
registering associations, and many cats are registered in more than one
association. Because CFA is by far the largest registry, it can be safely
assumed that its numbers represent at least half of the purebred cats.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to estimate of no more than six percent of owned cats are purebred.
This assumption is born out by both surveys of SDC and SCC. In San Diego, 9.1% of the owned cats are claimed to be purebred, with or without papers. Santa Clara claimed 10.7% purebred. (The owners were not questioned as to the possession of registration papers in SCC.) At first these numbers would appear to be much higher than the 3% to 6% projections expected from CFA's report. However, when questions regarding origin and registration are examined, the answer to the discrepancies appear.
The general public has problem identifying cat breeds. Purebred dogs generally have very distinct physical characteristics--ranging from the tiny Chihuahua to the large Irish Wolfhound. The characteristics which distinguish purebred cats from domestic varieties are much more subtle. All cats are roughly the same size and shape. Coat colors and lengths of purebred cats can be found, to some extent, in the natural population of domestic cats. To the uninformed, if the cat has long, soft fur it is a Persian; if it is slate gray it is a Russian Blue; if it is a big, brown tabby it is a Maine Coon Cat. If people admit their cat is not purebred, they often will say it is "part" purebred.
Two reliable sources of true, purebred cats or dogs are breeders and pet stores. Animals with registration papers can safely be assumed to be truly purebred. If the animal is without papers, the source of the animal may indicate if it is a purebred. The animal is much less likely to be a purebred if it is found or bought from a source other than a breeder or a pet store.
Of the owned SDC purebred cats, 5.6% came with papers. "Purebreds" without papers accounted for the other 3.5% of the total 9.1%. However, of the cats without papers, only one cat came from a breeder and none came from a pet store. From reliable sources, 6% of the animals can be considered purebred. The other 3.6% are dubious.
The likelihood of a dog being purebred is more than six times higher than for cats. There may be several reasons for this occurrence. Because of the widespread, stringent and enforced leash laws, roaming and free breeding dogs are relatively few. Dogs are much less likely than cats just to show up stray at a house and be adopted. So, to get a dog, people have to make some effort to go somewhere to get one--breeders and pets stores with purebreds being two common options.
Furthermore, dogs are bred to specific purposes, such as hunting, guarding and herding. There is a certain status symbol to owning purebred dogs, which can be walked in public or taken for rides and displayed in the owner's car. (Purebred cats are usually indoor only pets, who retaliate against leashes for public walks, are distressed at car rides, and too short to see out of the windows anyway; and so, they are less on display for the owner's ego gratification.) Purebred dogs are also more familiar to people than purebred cats, as purebred dogs have been recognized and bred for centuries. The Western cat fancy is a relative newcomer. All of these factors can help explain why owned dogs are more likely to be purebred animals.
Cats, on the other hand, have a large population of free roaming, free breeding animals producing a ready supply of litters. Potential cat owners are not required to see a breeder to obtain a cat. Leave a dish of food on a front porch and it is easy, and probable, to be adopted by a cat. With a large, free of charge, at-your-doorstep population of cats, there is no need to look any further for another cat, let alone spend several hundred dollars on a purebred.
In many regards, cats are not as highly "valued" as dogs are in this society. Some of this bias is based on long-standing prejudice and superstition. Cats also have the stigma of being "aloof" (think Garfield) whereas dogs are "man's best friend" (think Lassie). Cats are becoming more popular pets, and so are slowly rising in perceived value to the society. However, with the ever present supply of roaming cats, it is unlikely the percentage of purebred cats owned will reach the rate of purebred dogs.
Whenever discussions of animal regulation occur, suggestions for restrictions on purebred animal breeding usually follow. The surface rationale is, "If there are too many animals in the shelters, it is because too many animals are being bred. Purebred animals are purposely bred. Therefore, breeders must be the problem, and we must regulate them."
This reasoning does not hold up under scrutiny, as this survey clearly shows. At most, purebred cats make up 6% of owned cats, which is 3.8% of the entire known cat population. Purebred cats are much more likely to be indoor-only cats, and less likely to be randomly bred. Roaming, free breeding cats, on
the other hand, make up well over a third of the known cat population. It is clear where the problem lies. Cities are not being overrun by herds of wandering Himalayan and Devon Rex cats.
There is also no evidence that purebred dogs are a problem. While it is possible to find purebred dogs in the shelters, the shelter population would need to exceed 60% purebreds to have them be over-represented. The percentage of purebred dogs in the shelters is estimated to be 25%. Stray dogs do not produce enough randomly bred litters to supply the dog owning population. Beside providing animals bred for specific tasks, breeders of purebred dogs are a necessary source of planned, wanted pets for the public.
Responsible pet ownership
People are altering their pets. A very high percentage of all owned cats and dogs are either spayed or neutered in San Diego County.
San Diego is following the national trend in regards to spaying and neutering pets. Five studies from 1981 to the present, [5],[6],[7],[8] in various areas of the country, show the vast majority of owned cats are altered. See Chart Four (below). Female dogs are altered in greater number than male dogs, although there appears to be a growing acceptance of neutering males.
CHART FOUR.
Altered Status of Owned Dogs and Cats
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| San Diego | Santa Clara | Las Vegas | Tufts | MSPCA
| CA | County, CA | NV | MA | MA
| 1994 | 1993 | 1981 | 1991 | 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMALE DOGS:
Spayed | 76.0% | - | 77.2% | 87.8% | -
Whole | 23.3% | - | 22.8% | 12.2% | -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MALE DOGS:
Neutered | 59.9% | - | 26.4% | 45.0% | -
Whole | 40.0% | - | 72.5% | 55.0% | -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL DOGS:
Altered | - | - | - | - | 73.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMALE CATS:
Spayed | 82.8% | 86.9% | 85.7% | 91.5% | -
Whole | 18.2% | 13.1% | 14.3% | 8.5% | -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MALE CATS:
Neutered | 87.1% | 85.9% | 78.9% | 90.3% | -
Whole | 12.9% | 14.1% | 21.1% | 9.7% | -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL CATS:
Altered | - | - | - | - | 87.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owned cats are altered at the rate of 84.2% in SDC. This is a few percentage points lower than in other areas of the country. But intact females, old enough to breed, comprise only 3.3% of the SDC owned cat population. Only 1.2% of this county's owned cats are kept intact for planned breeding.
Even the most negative of nay-sayers must admit public education is working as to the benefits of neutering pets. To have so many pets "fixed" in such a large and diverse community as San Diego County is tremendously positive. The community should be proud of its achievements.
While the spay rate is high, especially in owned cats, all is not wonderful. Roughly 19% of the female cats had a litter prior to being spayed. This falls in line with the 16-20% of females which had a litter prior to being spayed found in other studies.[9],[10],[11] Far and away these were accidental pregnancies, which NPA dubbed the "oops factor." The oops factor accounted for 58.3% of the pregnancies before spaying.
Typical responses to the question, "Why did your cat have a litter?" often began with, "Oops," followed by, "I didn't know the cat could get pregnant so young" or, "I didn't realize the cat was in heat when she went out." Many of these owners had planned to spay their cats before the cats became pregnant, but once they were, they did not want to abort the litters.
An even closer look at the 19% of female cats who had litters prior to being spayed revealed only 5.6% of these were adopted as strays. A shocking 14.3% of the cats were adopted from a humane society or animal control. Cats given away to new homes accounted for another 15.2%. Cats born at home were responsible for another 20.9%, but these were usually planned breedings. The survey also showed that 10.7% of pet store acquired cats, 11.8% of cats bought from breeders, and 7.1% of cats found through ads had litters prior to being spayed.
Lost pets
The number of permanently missing dogs accounted for only 7.1% of the 3.3% of the owned dogs that went missing for a day or more. This is only 0.23% of the entire dog population to disappear without a hint of their fates. Most of the owners of missing dogs contacted humane shelters, and 21.4% of the missing dogs were found at shelters.
In 1993, only 0.94% of the owned cat population disappeared with out a trace. This closely compares to SCC's 0.58% permanently missing pet cats. Most of the lost cats came back on their own and none were found at humane shelters.
These numbers indicate that only a minute percentage of the animals handled at local shelters are missing, owned pets.
Euthansias
Communities and their local governments, including San Diego County, have been deluged by the cries of, "Huge numbers of animals are killed in our shelters! It is out of control! Do something!" While these may be emotionally satisfying statements, they do not actually solve anything.
Are huge numbers of animals killed in the shelters? National figures have shown euthanasias dramatically decreased in the last decade. While animals are euthanized, it is not in the out-of-control, upward spiral of which we often hear.
National Trends
In the late 1980's, nationwide reports of euthanasias were estimated to be in the range of twenty million annually. In 1991, the estimate was thirteen million. Current projections, by the Humane Society of the United States, put the number somewhere between five and eight million. A 1990 Tufts University study projected the number at 2.3 to 3.0 million.[12] By either estimate, there has been a tremendous drop in the number of animals euthanized nationwide.
Apply these numbers to any other social problem facing our country, and the 30-50% drop in incident rates in a decade would be heralded a tremendous success. No doubt such efforts would be linked to expensive, government programs.
There are no such government involvements for lowering the number of animal euthanasias. However, various private organizations promote spay/neuter programs and provide public education as to responsible pet ownership. These organizations raised public awareness. Additionally, leash laws for dogs
reduce the number of roaming, and possibly breeding, dogs. Societal factors
may be partially responsible for the lower number of animals being euthanized. For example, it is possible the increase of families in which both parents work outside the home may be lowering the number of families letting their pets have a litter for fun, since these litters require a large amount of time and care.
The Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley (HSSCV) is the third largest Humane Society in the country based on the number of animals handled. As is typical of many shelters, the number of cats euthanized is far more than the number of dogs. At HSSCV they are euthanized at four times the rate of dogs.
A study of HSSCV shelter statistics from January 1 to November 30, 1994 revealed interesting information regarding their cat population. Cats that are sick, feral and "too young" amount to almost two-thirds of the total number of dogs and cats euthanized during this time period. Overall, euthanized cats represent 81% of the dogs and cats euthanized. Kittens under the age of four weeks, which would be unweaned, account for 14.4% of the all euthanasias. Sick and injured cats were another 36.6%, feral (wild and therefore not adoptable) cats comprised 16%. Only 2.4% could be categorized as adoptable but euthanized because the shelter ran out of time and space to keep them.
The same study found sick or injured dogs accounted for 50% of the total dog euthanasias at HSSCV, which is 9.5% of the total euthanasias. Behavior problems in dogs accounts for another 8.6% and dogs that are euthanized because the shelter ran out of time and space are only 1.7% of overall euthanasias.
For fiscal year 1992-93, San Mateo County's Peninsula Humane Society (PHS) showed similar numbers for cats euthanized: 38% unweaned kittens, 27% feral, and 24% sick or injured.
Locally
SDC Animal Management Information System reported nearly a 10% annual increase in the number of cats handled from 1988 to 1992. The increase peaked at 13% from FY91 to FY92, with a total of 19,077 cats. The figures then reversed to an overall drop of 35% from 1988 to 1993.
San Diego Animal Control Cat Statistics 1988-1994
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Total | Claimed | Adopted | Euth. | Research | Other*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
88-89 | 13929 | 202 | 2130 | 10976 | 7 | 614
89-90 | 15394 | 230 | 2224 | 12349 | - | 591
90-91 | 16849 | 238 | 2426 | 13561 | 7 | 617
91-92 | 19077 | 248 | 2577 | 15525 | 6 | 721
92-93 | 14143 | 180 | 2297 | 11121 | - | 545
93-94 | 12446 | 223 | 2386 | 9296 | - | 568
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other includes: return to wild, transfer to correct jurisdiction,
wildlife rehab, stolen, escaped, DOA, died in kennel, died in truck,
died at contract vet, misc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sharp decline will be discussed further in the following section, Proposed Solutions, Feral Cat Coalition
Animal Management Information System's report for dogs during the same period shows a different pattern. The number of dogs handled and euthanized has been steadily decreasing since 1988, following the national trend.
San Diego Animal Control Dog Statistics 1988-1994
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Total | Claimed | Adopted | Euth. | Research | Other
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
88-89 | 24070 | 5147 | 4355 | 13313 | 526 | 729
89-90 | 24177 | 5213 | 4540 | 13215 | 324 | 885
90-91 | 22549 | 4749 | 4357 | 12155 | 320 | 968
91-92 | 22707 | 4847 | 4493 | 12216 | 233 | 918
92-93 | 19544 | 4342 | 4385 | 9791 | 239 | 787
93-94 | 18275 | 4014 | 4721 | 8592 | 159 | 789
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of punitive laws on shelter statistics
Stringent, punitive legislation, such as mandatory spay and neuter laws, do not reduce the number of euthanasias. In some cases, enactment of such laws result in increasing the euthanasia rates.
San Mateo
San Mateo County made national news when its controversial mandatory spay/neuter legislation went into effect in March 1992. Many communities quickly followed suit, without waiting to see if the new legislation was effective or even enforceable. It was neither.
A 1991 analysis of historical trends in San Mateo, predicted that without the new law the Peninsula Humane Society would handle between 12,400 and 13,500 animals in 1993. During that time the PHS would have euthanized between 7,100 and 7,500 animals.[13]
The actual number of animals handled in 1993 by PHS--with the new legislation--was 13,379 with 7,479 euthanized.
Further predictions, based on historical trends, estimate in 1995-96
euthanasias will be between 5,078 and 6,068, with incoming live animals
between 8,976 and 11,354. For 1994, the actual total euthanasias performed by
PHS were 6245, confirming the downward trend as predicted.
The law has no overall effect on the number of animals handled or euthanized by PHS.
The mandatory spay/neuter laws apply only to the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, where an effect has been seen. Euthanasias have increased. In 1992, in unincorporated San Mateo County, the dog euthanasias were 53. In 1993 they were 78. For cats in 1992, 377 were euthanized, while 437 were euthanized in 1993.
New figures for the 93-94 fiscal year show the number of cats euthanized as "surplus" (out of cage space and/or time) by PHS for the unincorporated county to have increased from 28 to 63 from the prior year. Surplus dogs euthanized for the unincorporated county increased from 39 to 66 during the same time.
The number of cats handled by PHS over the past year for the entire county dropped by 17%, yet at the same time the number of cats euthanized for medical reasons dropped by 48%. Either the cats which were previously being euthanized for medical reasons are now being treated in an attempt to artificially lower euthanasia numbers by changing protocol, or cats were incorrectly categorized previously.
The total net costs for implementing the new law were $57,390 between 1992 and 1993.
King County, WA
King County, Washington is another example of how punitive pet ordinances do
not have the intended effect on euthanasias. 14 King County's 1993 ordinance
is even more restrictive than San Mateo County's. Before 1993, King County
was following the national downward trend in euthanasia statistics since
1988.
However, after their restrictive ordinance was implemented, it is significant to note their percentage drop in euthanasias from 1993-1994 was drastically curtailed:
----------------------------------------------------------
| 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 |
----------------------------------------------------------
DROP in # euthanized | 2,181 | 1,074 | 1,478 | 187 |
% drop | 15.8% | 9.2% | 14.0% | 2.1% |
----------------------------------------------------------
Because of the difference between 1991 and 1992-93, it appears the ordinance may have been responsible for an initial increase in euthanasias in 92-93, as people turned over their pets to animal control.
Based upon the historical, steady decline of euthanasias prior to ordinance enactment, euthanasia figures for 1994 should have been around 7,800. If the ordinance was effective, the 1994 total should have been well below 7,800. Instead, after ordinance enactment, the 1994 total was 8,738. The new laws actually greatly increased the number of euthanasias.