Editorial: How to introduce neuter/return & make it work

[Guest guest]

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 2010:

 

 

Editorial:

 

How to introduce neuter/return & make it work

 

Even before publication of our first edition, in September

1992, ANIMAL PEOPLE advocated and demonstrated the use of

neuter/return in place of catch-and-kill animal control. Our very

first project proved the efficacy of neuter/return plus vaccination

to keep raccoon rabies from spreading among feral cats at eight sites

in Connecticut.

Witnessing, documenting, and reporting about the success of

neuter/return in controlling dog and cat populations worldwide often

provides a sense of accomplishment. Yet a frequent source of

frustration comes from seeing the failure of poorly planned, ineptly

executed, and negligently maintained neuter/return projects.

Nearly 30 years after neuter/return was first successfully

demonstrated in South Africa, Kenya, and Britain, a decade before

formal introduction to the U.S., there no longer seems to be much

doubt among animal advocates and the international public health

sector that neuter/return, properly conducted, is at once the most

humane method of reducing the numbers of feral cats and street dogs,

and the most effective way to control disease vectors.

The humane argument against killing healthy animals for

population control scarcely needs introduction or summary. But the

public health argument for neuter/return tends to be at least as

persuasive when governments review their animal control policies.

From the public health perspective, neuter/return plus vaccination

replaces high mortality and birth rates among often diseased feral

cats and street dogs with stable populations of healthy animals.

Neuter/return also gradually reduces feral cat and street dog numbers

without sacrificing their role in controlling rodents, who are of

vastly greater significance as disease vectors. In effect,

neuter/return buys time in which to improve refuse disposal and other

aspects of sanitation, or at least to allow nature a chance to fill

the scavenging void with other creatures.

Effectively managed, neuter/return sells itself well enough

to have become national policy in India, Costa Rica, and Turkey,

and to have developed strong interest among policy makers in many

other nations. There is, nonetheless, continuing opposition from

people who feel that returning feral cats and street dogs to their

habitat under any circumstance is inhumane, unclean, perpetuating

societal backwardness, and/or presenting a threat to wildlife,

especially birds, who would be threatened much more if feral cats

remained unsterilized.

Opponents of neuter/return can be counted upon to continue to

amplify word of any failures of neuter/return programs, as they have

since neuter/return begain. Failures will continue to be represented

as failures of the neuter/return concept, not as the inevitable

result of poor planning, execution, and maintenance. Public

policies which have become favorable to neuter/return may sometimes

be amended in adverse ways, as occurred in Los Angeles as result of

a December 2009 court decision that any neuter/return feral cat

control project done with public support must be preceded by an

environmental impact statement.

ANIMAL PEOPLE is asked no question more often than variants

on " How can we overcome opposition to neuter/return in our

community? " Sometimes the opposition is to introducing a

neuter/return program of any sort, based on negative views of feral

cats or street dogs. Often, though, the opposition is based on

misunderstanding of how neuter/return uses ecological principles to

achieve a lasting transition in which species make use of food

sources and habitat. Sometimes opposition to neuter/return is also

based on perceptions that neuter/return has failed elsewhere, and

will not succeed in addressing the specific concerns of the

community--or has already failed in the community. In fairness to

neuter/return critics, failures are common; but these are almost

entirely from predictable and remediable causes.

Overcoming opposition to neuter/return really requires only

demonstrating success. Neuter/return should significantly and

visibly reduce the problematic presence and activities of the species

it targets, including minimizing harmful effects on wildlife. A

neuter/return program that does not accomplish these goals needs to

be redesigned so that it does.

Demonstrating success begins with carrying out demonstration

projects, on a limited scale. Working on a limited scale,

especially at first, gives a neuter/return team the chance to

recognize, address, and avoid repeating mistakes. Starting small

enables a neuter/return team to develop the capacity needed to work

successfully on a larger scale later, including the ability to raise

funds enough to sustain each project, capture enough cats or dogs

for surgeons to work efficiently, and safely perform enough

surgeries to reach a 70%-plus rate of sterilization of cats or dogs

(or both) within the target area and within a single breeding cycle.

70% is the minimum sterilization rate necessary to stabilize

a feral cat or street dog population. Achieving a reduction of the

population requires achieving a higher sterilization rate. Until the

project achieves at least 70% sterilization, the target population

will retain the capacity to breed back up to the carrying capacity of

the habitat within one breeding cycle.

The " get 70% or flunk " rule is by now known to most people

advocating neuter/return. Yet the importance of getting at least to

70% in one location before moving on has not yet been fully accepted

by many neuter/return practitioners, who still scatter their efforts

across whole cities, instead of focusing on specific neighborhoods

with boundaries such as rivers, busy highways, and other geographic

features that inhibit animals from migrating in to occupy habitat

left open by a declining birth rate.

 

No shortcuts

 

Before any organization or ambitious individual begins a

neuter/return project, it is critical that the neuter/return process

be thoroughly understood. There are no shortcuts to success. Yet

correspondents often ask ANIMAL PEOPLE to recommend or at least

endorse, as one recent neuter/return advocate wrote, " compromises

between doing it 100% perfectly versus the real world. " This is like

seeking a compromise between flying and crashing. Neuter/return

succeeds, when done properly, by altering the balance of species

who occupy the carrying capacity of the habitat. There are many ways

to do the necessary work on an extremely limited budget, but there

is no substitute for doing the work. The fewer the resources of the

neuter/return practitioners, the more essential it is to plan every

step, anticipate every contingency, and minimize making wasteful

mistakes.

Neuter/return rarely succeeds if there is compromise on doing

the necessary preliminary research; thoroughly training program

participants in best practices, from animal capture to return of

sterilized animals to their habitats; and insisting that the best

surgical techniques be used, under absolutely aseptic conditions.

For example, it is self-defeating to hire a surgeon to spay

cats or dogs who makes unnecessarily large incisions, and relies on

antibiotics instead of asepsis to prevent post-surgical infections.

The animals will avoidably suffer; the efficacy of the program will

suffer because of the need to hold animals longer to ensure that they

do not become infected, or to treat infections; and the credibility

of the program will suffer if sutures fail after animals are

released, as occurs most often when multiple sutures are used to

close large incisions.

Expecting inadequately trained and practiced surgeons to

sterilize more animals than they can handle is perhaps the second

most common reason for street dog sterilization program failures in

the developing world.

The first most common reason for neuter/return failures

involving either dogs or cats, in any part of the world, is

starting to operate before doing the necessary preliminary surveys.

The essentials are accurately assessing both the target animal

population and their environment. This begins with mapping the

habitat.

Sometimes this is easy. Highly successful neuter/return

programs have been done within the visibly limited confines of a

gated residential development, a fenced military base or industrial

park, a greenbelt surrounded by freeways and busy streets, or even

just the courtyards, balconies, and rooftops of indvidual apartment

houses. Yet one should not merely assume that even such seemingly

obviously delineated habitats are self-contained. A busy street,

for example, may be much less a barrier to a nocturnal population of

dogs or cats, who cross in the wee hours of the morning, than

humans might guess.

Designing a neuter/return program to serve a neighborhood

without obvious physical boundaries will usually be more difficult.

Such neighborhoods usually are not the best places to demonstrate

neuter/return. Yet careful observation may discern that dogs and

cats do not usually pass through blocks without food sources, such

as accessible garbage, or where aggressive pet dogs chase visitors.

Urine markings and/or scent mounds will reveal favored routes, while

the absence of markings and mounds within a distance of about a block

may mean that something within this space inhibits animal passage.

Regardless of what the boundaries to a particular feral cat

or street dog habitat are, they must be identified, and a

successful neuter/return program must work from boundary to boundary

to avoid merely opening habitat to other cats or dogs.

There is no substitute for counting the target species within

the target area, not only before beginning a neuter/return project,

but also repeatedly during the project, to make sure the initial

population estimates were accurate, and afterward, to quantify

success and identify immigrant animals, who also must be sterilized,

lest they repopulate the target area.

Doing an accurate dog or cat population count need not cost

any more than the price of a clipboard and pen, and the time to walk

repeated line transects of the neighborhood, night and day. ANIMAL

PEOPLE will be pleased to e-mail instructions to anyone in need of

them. Because this work is simple and inexpensive, it is an

excellent starting point for would-be neuter/return practitioners who

have yet to raise a project budget; and the data thus obtained can

become the basis for successful fundraising.

 

Sterilize pets first

 

If targeting feral cats, one must develop estimates of the

feral cat population in comparison to the roaming pet cat population.

To stabilize or reduce the numbers of cats at large, neuter/return

practitioners often find that they must sterilize both feral cats and

roaming pets. Even sterilizing (or exterminating) 100% of a feral

cat population will achieve nothing to reduce the total number of

cats, if--as is now the case in parts of the U.S.--the roaming pets

are four times more numerous and have a sterilization rate of only

50%, or lower.

In that case, the roaming pet cats have more than enough

reproductive capacity to quickly replace themselves and the entire

feral cat population; and because the roaming pet cats may be making

the greatest contribution to cat population growth, the program can

accomplish more, faster, by focusing on sterilizing the roaming pet

cats and educating their people, than by starting out trapping

ferals. Trapping ferals should be the second phase of the program,

begun after the sterilization rate among the roaming pet cats is

raised to 70%-plus.

If targeting street dogs, one must likewise develop an

accurate understanding of the balance of population among

free-roaming pets; " community " dogs, who are more-or-less public

pets; and authentic feral dogs, who may be the hardest to catch,

while making the least contribution to dog population growth,

because their puppies usually have the lowest rate of survival.

Again, a sterilization program will usually need to serve all of

these populations. Again, it is sensible to sterilize as many of

the free-roaming pets as possible first, enlisting the cooperation

of their people; then progress to the " community dogs, " who are

relatively easily handled; and leave the feral dogs for last.

Along with surveying the animal populations, a neuter/return

practitioner should survey the diseases and parasites that may be

common among them, and develop a strategy for eradicating disease

and parasites as part of the neuter/return program. This will

typically include vaccination against rabies and distemper, and

sometimes other ailments; deworming; mange treatment; and in some

habitats, application of fungicides. A neuter/return practitioner

cannot guarantee the quality of life of every feral cat or street dog

handled, but relatively small investments in disease treatment can

substantially improve the quality of life of most.

Further, one can greatly improve public acceptance of

animals by eliminating visible conditions such as mange and the

emaciation caused by intestinal worms.

Ideally, one should obtain recent wildlife population counts

before beginning a neuter/return program. In the U.S., Christmas

bird survey data for many locations is available from the National

Audubon Society (which opposes neuter/return). Breeding Bird Survey

counts may be obtained from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. State

and local agencies may have information about wild mammal populations.

The best defense against an allegation that neuter/return may

harm birds is to show that preventing cats from bearing litters

reduces predation on birds--and on rodents, who are also eaten by

many birds. If a feral cat neuter/return project may open habitat to

hawks, owls, and eagles, one may need to be able to show that

hawks, owls, and eagles attracted by an increased abundance of mice

are also responsible for increased predation on songbirds.

A neuter/return program that reduces the numbers of street

dogs may at the same time encourage a rapid increase in the feral cat

population--or immigration of monkeys or street pigs, or even

jackals and leopards in some habitats.

Effective neuter/return program planning requires identifying

the possible effects involving other species, and formulating

responses for whatever might result.

 

Not all animals can be returned

 

The goal of any neuter/return program is to return sterilized

animals to their habitat to live out the balance of their lives,

ideally with better quality of life than they had before.

Yet not every animal can be returned to the habitat from

which the animal came. ANIMAL PEOPLE has often editorially reminded

readers that the prime directive for doing neuter/return

successfully, in a humane manner, is to never return animals to

unsuitable habitat. This includes habitat where there is a strong

likelihood that the animals will be poisoned, shot, or trapped for

dispatch by animal control.

Returning a feral dog or cat to habitat where the animal has

already learned to avoid natural predators, such as coyotes, foxes,

leopards, or tigers, is merely recognizing that the animal is

living as wildlife, enjoying the freedoms and trying to evade the

risks that normally accompany wild existence. Returning a feral dog

or cat to habitat where the animal is unwelcome and will be subject

to human persecution may cause more suffering than just humanely

killing the animal in the first place, before putting the animal

through the stress of sterilization surgery. Inherently unsuitable

habitat includes land reserved for wildlife; multiple use public

parks, where the presence of dogs and cats may interfere with other

uses, leading to complaints that end with the animals being killed;

and sites where the visibility of dogs and cats leads to abandonments

of pets.

Even when the habitat is suitable, not every cat or dog

captured by a neuter/return program is a suitable candidate for

release. Sick or injured animals should not be put back into

situations where they will suffer and may spread diseases to others.

Abandoned ex-pets are usually conspicuous by visibly suffering from

life as feral or street animals, and should not be returned to a

homeless existence. Easily tamed cats and dogs, including kittens

and puppies, can be rehomed. Where the goal is to reduce the

numbers of cats and dogs as rapidly as possible, socializing the

tamest animals for adoption is usually the quickest way to show

progress.

Neuter/return is often promoted as an alternative to

sheltering animals, as in the " no kill, no shelter " model advanced

by Gerardo Vicente, DVM, of the McKee Project in Costa Rica, and

the " no kill " strategy advanced by No Kill Advocacy Center founder

Nathan Winograd. Indeed, neuter/return is an effective and humane

alternative to sheltering many feral cats and street dogs, but it

does not eliminate entirely the need to shelter or foster animals,

even as part of neuter/return programs.

From the very beginning, a successful neuter/return program

must decide what it will do with animals who cannot be returned to

their habitat, and must develop facilities appropriate to the chosen

responses. If a neuter/return program chooses not to operate a

shelter or fostering network, it must partner with other people who

provide these services, or be prepared to kill animals for whom

there are no other options.

The volume of animals a neuter/return program may handle who

cannot be returned to their habitat should not be underestimated.

The 1992 ANIMAL PEOPLE demonstration of neuter/return found that

about 25% of the feral cats handled could not be returned to their

habitat, of whom 6% required euthanasia due to illness or injury,

while 19% were either adopted out or kept by ANIMAL PEOPLE for the

remainder of their lives. Several survived as long as 15 years.

Our experience, in light of subsequent results from other

programs around the U.S. and in the developing world, turned out to

be unusually positive. Many, especially those handling street dogs

in areas with endemic rabies, find that they cannot return even half

of the animals they receive to their habitat. Three recently visited

by ANIMAL PEOPLE, in far removed parts of the world, found that

they euthanized from 15% to 33% of the dogs they handled, chiefly

due to signs of exposure to rabies.

Up to 40% of the dogs these organizations received were held

either as prospects for adoption or due to dangerous behavior, which

increased among male dogs when the numbers of females coming into

heat declined. Specifically, large packs formed in pursuit of the

remaining fertile females, pursued passers-by, and--though not

killed--were microchipped or tattooed as unreleasable by the

community dogcatchers. Because killing healthy dogs is morally

unacceptable to each organization, the outcome in each case is that

a program initially focused on neuter/return has become refocused to

a considerable extent upon sheltering, at great cost to program

resources.

The goals of a successful neuter/return project must be

identified right from the beginning, and may differ for the various

stakeholders, including the humane organization undertaking the

project, the donors to the project, the owners of property where

the animals congregate, the people who feed the animals, the people

who object to the animals' presence, the local public health

officials, and the community government. All should be consulted.

The neuter/return process must be adequately explained to each set of

stakeholders. Cooperation should be solicited to the utmost extent

possible, and tolerance of the project should be established, if

possible, even in absence of active cooperation.

Introducing the first phases of the project as a trial or

demonstration will usually help to win tolerance, including of

mistakes that may occur as the project participants develop the

necessary skills and capacity to work on a larger scale.

Neuter/return practitioners must identify in each place they

work whether the primary goal of most of the stakeholders is

extirpation, meaning that there are no more feral cats or street

dogs, or merely a reduction of problems associated with the animals.

Whether the goal is feasible must be carefully assessed, along with

the possible consequences of success.

For example, extirpating a feral cat or street dog

population is usually not possible where poor sanitation makes food

waste and rodents abundant, but reducing the numbers of cats or dogs

may encourage the arrival of raccoons, coyotes, or monkeys, who

may be seen as even more problematic. The solution may be for the

neuter/return team to work in partnership with agencies or civic

organizations whose focus is improving sanitation.

The most successful neuter/return projects document each

result as it occurs. If a cat colony or the number of dogs on a

street corner declines, this is recorded. Conversely, if two

declining cat colonies or street corner dog packs merge, making one

larger while the other disappears, this is noted, in case it needs

to be explained to someone.

Frequent consultations to compare observations ensure that

other stakeholders are seeing the same things happen. If there are

differences in perception, the differences are explored, and

conflicting observations are reconciled. Sometimes this requires

making a change in procedure--for example, by counting animals at a

different hour.

Ideally, satisfied stakeholders in a well-planned and

efficiently executed neuter/return demonstration project will become

advocates for an expanded project. Several successful demonstration

projects, of increasing scope and in increasingly challenging

habitats, may be needed before skeptical public officials are

persuaded to take the political risk inherent in replacing an

established catch-and-kill or poisoning program with neuter/return as

policy. Realistically, the time from inception of a first

demonstration neuter/return project to acceptance of neuter/return as

public policy will take at least three to five years of documented

success, and may take 10 years or more.

As urgent as the needs of the individual animals served by

neuter/return often are, attempting to establish neuter/return as

public policy before the capacity to do it is adequately developed

is usually a prescription for failure. The consequences of a failure

leading to public policy decisions reinforcing catch-and-kill or

poisoning are not easily undone.

Far more beneficial for animals in the long run is to work in

a stepwise, incremental manner, ensuring that each task in

introducing neuter/return is done effectively and persuasively,

avoiding catastrophic failures whose effects may hinder the

development of other neuter/return programs, not only locally but

worldwide.

 

 

 

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephones: 360-579-2505, 360-678-1057

Cell: 360-969-0450

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[Your donations help to support ANIMAL PEOPLE, the leading

independent nonprofit newspaper providing original investigative

coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our

global readership includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000

animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation

with any other entity. Free online; $24/year by post; for free

sample, please send postal address.]