Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights

by Jennifer Shortall
Reprinted from The Bengal Bulletin, September 1999

I've been called many things in my life, and I'm sure to be called many more things before it's all over, but I never expected to be called a "murderer".

This label was placed upon me at the start of my breeding hobby, by a friend whom I knew from working as a volunteer and serving on the Board of Directors for a local shelter. I envisioned myself as a responsible breeder, one who would do my part to find good homes for all kittens produced, perform early spay/neuter, assist in rescue efforts where possible, and provide an educational link between Joe Q. Public and the Cat Fancy.

My animal-rights friend had different ideas. She lectured me at great length that animals produced by breeders take up spaces in homes that would otherwise be filled by a shelter animal, thus dooming the unadopted shelter animal, to a death sentence. If only breeders would stop making more animals, soon shelters would be empty and cats would be more valuable. She urged me, in the name of conscience, to stop thoughts of breeding cats, and instead work toward the ending of breeding altogether.

Cat and Dog Fanciers are especially easy targets for Animal Rights Activists (ARAs) because we love our animals. HSUS and PeTA enjoy nothing more than watching responsible breeders hang their heads in shame, when puppy and kitten mill video footage is splashed all over the evening news. In breeding ban wars, we are our own worst enemies. ARA groups use emotionally-charged media blitzes to bludgeon us with myths and exaggerations, encouraging some well-meaning but guilt-ridden breeders to actually join their groups, fund their efforts, and work toward restrictive legislation, imposing self-regulations in a desperate attempt to make up for a few bad breeders.

I care deeply about the welfare of all felines. To think that my decision to become a breeder might have made me the unwitting executioner of adoptable shelter cats had quite an effect on my conscience. I desired to learn more about the "pet overpopulation crisis", to try and reach an ethical compromise: to breed, yet still keep feline welfare at the forefront. I began methodically researching regional and national trends in animal sheltering and domestic animal populations.

The Real Crisis

That a massive and out of control "pet overpopulation crisis" exists in the United States, is something that is widely believed simply because it's been shouted from the highest heights by ARA groups for over two decades now. Faced with continued insistence from all sides that there is such a "crisis", being told that no matter what measures we attempt in order to bring things under control, it has only been getting worse, we've been distressed, and alarmed. Since there must always be someone to blame for a "crisis", first veterinarians, then puppy and kitten mills, pet stores and backyard breeders were at fault, and now hobby/show breeders are even being fingered as the culprits. Attempting to find solutions for this "crisis" is an unusual predicament for breeders because the search itself assumes that the existence of the problem has been proven.

To my amazement, I found during my searching that the numbers of both dogs and cats impounded and/or euthanized in shelters nationwide, had DECREASED - in one regional example, by as much as 40% for dogs and 47% for cats from 1985 through 1990. These numbers are down even more dramatically if we go back to the early 1970's - a 75% reduction in euthanasia rates nationwide. The 20-30 million number that ARAs always use, was estimated in 1971; a more recent study in 1996 shows the number to be closer to 4-5 million. We are not killing puppies or kittens in vast numbers (aside from seasonal variations, for example, more kittens and puppies are born in the spring so there is less room for them all). Shelters are killing 2- to 5-year old adult cats and dogs, as the majority.

So, let us re-examine the facts. After investigating thoroughly, checking the latest reports gathered since 1991 by neutral sources, we find that even though the pet population has increased in the United States, the euthanasia rate has in fact decreased dramatically over the past two decades. In other words, "overpopulation" is a meaningless term when talking about pets. In fact, there are newly created regional imbalances: some urban areas of the country have puppy and kitten shortages, and have begun to import unwanted litters for their adoption programs from more rural areas where the problem is greater. To get to the heart of the matter, we must understand why previously-owned adult cats, the majority killed (second only to feral cats), are given up by their owners in the first place.

Gary Patronek, VMD, PhD, acting director of the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, urges cat lovers to pursue a new target: the disease of euthanasia.

Defining the Disease of Euthanasia

If mandatory spaying and neutering of all breeding cats started tomorrow, would we have empty animal shelters? The answer, sadly, is no. We live in a society where everything is disposable: our spouses, our children, picnic plasticware. And when you're tired of having an animal, dump it too. This is the far greater societal issue, one that spay/neuter alone will not fix. Even the San Francisco SPCA, the most successful "no kill" shelter in the country, still euthanizes nearly half the animals taken in (1994 statistics; 7,944 adopted out, 4,589 considered "unadoptable" - euthanized).

It is necessary to separate dogs and cats, for several reasons. The dynamics of the two populations are quite different, from sheltering perspectives. The majority of cats euthanized at municipal animal control agencies are untamed ferals, born wild, untouchable, unclaimed by anyone, and unadoptable. Private humane societies handle mostly owner surrenders, although some do take in strays and ferals. In most parts of the US, feral dogs are not a problem, and owner surrenders or unclaimed (owned) strays are the majority of dogs euthanized in both municipal agencies and private shelters.

Debunking the Myths

Myth: Millions of adoptable, healthy animals are killed anually in shelters.

Looking at current euthanasia statistics available both regionally and nationally, we can reasonably estimate that one in every four dogs and two of every three cats are still euthanized in shelters instead of being adopted out. But these raw numbers do not tell us very important facts, namely, of all the cats that exist in the United States as pets, what percentage will eventaully enter a shelter? How many of those killed were healthy, well behaved, adoptable animals, and how many considered unadoptable due to medical or behavioral problems. They do not specify how many were killed just for lack of space, at their owner's request, or the average length of time adoption for any was attempted. They do not differentiate between strays, ferals, and owner surrenders.

Myth: Even responsibly bred kittens take homes away from shelter cats.

This universally repeated justification for anti-breeding laws assumes a "one size fits all" rationale for pet ownership. The fact is, people want puppies and kittens, and will get them wherever they are available. Removing reputable sources won't cut down the number of people desiring a particular type of pet. It is illogical to think that a person with their heart set on an active, socialized, shorthaired kitten from health-tested breeding stock will eagerly adopt a longhaired shelter cat of unknown origin and temperament if no kittens are available. It contradicts the welfarist's arguement that people should search for and carefully select a pet to fit their family and lifestyle. Selective breeding has allowed us to have cats that are predictable in matters of size, temperament, coat, color, and companionability.

Myth: The government should regulate and restrict cat breeding and sales by passing stricter laws.

Current laws are more than adequate to provide for proper care and welfare of animals in the hands of breeders and dealers. The issue is with enforcement abilities - limited manpower, limited funds, not lack of laws. Tighter restrictions on legal markets would bring less compliance and undoubtedly create gray or black markets, where safeguards on animal welfare would be nonexistent.

The purpose of current animal welfare and control laws is to protect public health and safety and prevent undue nuisance, as well as, to protect the animals themselves from neglect, cruelty or abuse. These are almost always written for dogs, with cats added as an afterthought. Cats differ from dogs in many ways, including health consequences from failing to breed regularly, and the need to keep higher numbers for genetic diversity and limit of spread of disease between closed catteries.

Myth: The answer to the cat population problem can be answered by requiring licensing of cats.

The San Francisco SPCA published a report on this issue. Major points are:

A. Cat licensing will not make owners more responsible. "Caring can't be mandated, and a licensing mandate will end up affecting only those who care ... by imposing a tax on their compassion," the report states. Activists counter that the law need only be invoked upon complaint, but the SFSPCA contends that irresponsible owners still won't be affected. If the law isn't enforced, they're free to ignore it. If it's enforced, they're likely to surrender or abandon their cats, adding to the number killed.

B. Cat licensing will not raise the status of cats. The rationale for believing so would seem to be that dogs are more valuable because they are licensed. In fact, compliance with dog licensing laws is poor and difficult to enforce.

C. Cat licensing will not reunite more strays with their owners in shelters. After the San Diego County Animal Control Advisory Board effected a mandatory licensing law in 1993, cat redemptions dropped by 32% to less than 10% reclaimed, as opposed to dogs; their reclaimation rate of 65% remained unchanged despite monetary fines. This premise also ignores the population of stray and feral cats, highly unlikely to be licensed under any law, remaining subject to being ignored or rounded up and killed, just as they are without licensing laws.

D. Cat licensing will not help reduce the number of stray and abandoned cats. The only way it could would be through the rounding up and killing of unlicensed cats. The euthanasia rate will increase rather than drop. Dog licenses can be worn as collar tags; most cat owners do not collar their cats for fear of collars getting hung up; some use break away safety collars, but they're often lost along with the attached tags. Feral cat colony caretakers may have to stop their duties for fear that they will be declared "owners" of and required to pay fees for the strays they feed and shelter.

E. Cat licensing will not help fund animal control. Higher license fees will bring less compliance, and even at $5-$10 per cat, covering the basic expenses of enforcement - paperwork, personnel, recordkeeping, etc - will not be covered. In reality, most community license fee monies go into a general fund anyway.

Myth: Limit laws regarding number of cats that can be owned is an effective strategy to increase the value of cats and lower the population.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania abolished such laws as unconstitutional "..means which stifle fundamental personal liberty, when the goals desired can be otherwise more reasonably achieved." The Court identified such laws as beyond the power of localities to enforce properly and indiscriminately. These types of laws are the most often abused, tools for vendettas by feuding neighbors or families.

Myth: Purebreds have too many genetic defects and faults; mixed breeds are healthier.

The structural faults and genetic diseases that plague pedigreed cats and dogs also exist in the mixed-breed population. The difference is that breeders keep track of the prevalence of disease in their animals, while mixes go uncounted. No one knows the prevalence of most defects in the nonpedigreed cat population, making this assumption impossible to prove. Breeders in the Cat/Dog Fancies are in fact the driving force behind the search for solutions - applying good husbandry principles and funding and participating in disease research that benefits all cats/dogs.

Myth: Mandatory spay/neuter legislation will solve the problem of unwanted cats.

Spay/neuter programs have already led to a dramatic decline in the number of animals born to owned cats. Logical next steps would be to make sterilization of shelter-adopted cats mandatory so that shelters do not unwittingly contribute to re-filling their own kennels later. Imposing coercive legislation on the general public, increases the burden and cost of enforcement on the community and creates an "us-against-them" polarized mentality. Compliance will come from those already behaving responsibly, opening the market (legal or illegal) for irresponsible people and out-of-area commercial dealers to fill.

No legislation will affect unowned ferals, the major source of unwanted kittens. And finally, altered animals are still turned in to shelters, showing that sterilization itself does not mean a pet will always be wanted or that lower euthanasia rates will result.

Myth: More people would alter their cats if the cost was reduced.

The cost of altering a cat is already far less than altering a dog, yet more dogs than cats are regularly altered by their owners at an early age. This is a likely reflection of the way cats are perceived and valued by their owners. Even free spay/neuter clinics meet with only limited success. We are back to the point at issue: a societal issue of value, for which only public education (especially geared toward children) is the most liklely fix.

Other Ways To Help

Breeders can help local animal welfare groups in many ways. For example, shelters sometimes must kill older cats to make space for new ones coming in. One solution is to help people keep their pets in the first place by teaching how to make good selections of new pets from the beginning and providing resources to help with understanding of cats as pets and normal cat behavior issues along with how to analyze and solve problems like litterbox mishaps instead of giving up the cat right away. By volunteering to spend an hour or two each week staffing a cat-related shelter phone line, a knowledgeable breeder can make a difference.

Our cat clubs and breed associations, like TICA and TIBCS, give us a uniquely organized center from which to promote feline welfare issues. "Backyard Breeders" are a poorly-defined group generally viewed as frivolous and irresponsible, ignorant of animal welfare concerns. They are most often people operating alone, without any club or other affiliations in which this kind of information is shared, and strong ethical practices supported and encouraged.

Cat Clubs and Registries:

• encourage responsible breeding practices;
• support thorough screening and education of potential adopters;
• promote spay-neuter requirements and early spay-neuter practices;
• contribute financially to cat-related causes including rescue groups, feline health research, and public awareness of responsible pet ownership;
• provide educational and ethical guidance for breeders through committees, seminars, informational packets, cattery inspection programs, breeder recognition awards, etc.;
• provide booth space at shows for animal rescue and welfare groups.

The Future

Animal Rights groups have lately felt a backlash from their years of polarized rhetoric and negatively directed tactics. Before PeTA began a hunter harassment campaign, for example, anti-harassment laws existed in only 6 states. Those laws now exist in every state but Hawaii. AR groups have lately begun to change their tactics, and breeders must be on guard once again, sitting as a rational voice for animal welfare on committies and advisory boards, urging our local poliitcians to choose and promote policies on the basis of facts rather than ingrained doctrinal assumptions. Good people who get elected to political office are inundated with private agendas from all sides. Their thinking is often influenced in one direction when they do not hear strong voices for all sides of an issue.

The following appeared in a widely published ARA publication. Let it serve as an indication to Cat Fanciers of the continued battles we must fight, with ever-increased diligence and awareness, as our "foes" are going underground and will seek to deceive us into funding their unpublicized efforts to destroy our hobby and take away the pets we love, by using that love against us behind our backs.

"The push for pet breeding bans ... violated both the first and second rules of successful politics: never make enemies needlessly, and never make a foe of a friend. Founded on the erroneous contention that animal shelter euthanasias were up, when they were down almost everywhere, it negated a dramatic positive achievement. It also targeted a group, pet fancy-breeders, who were not only not significantly contributing to pet overpopulation, but had also long actively fought pet overpopulation through parallel support of breed rescue groups, low-cost neutering clinics, and humane societies. The breeding ban campaigns had some positive effects, as many registries and fanciers increased their efforts against overpopulation. Pro-breeding ban groups including HSUS, PeTA and the Fund for Animals, however, still pay a high price for intemperate rhetoric ... Yielding moral authority on pets is especially damaging to the cause, since pets are the chief source of direct human interaction with animals, and empathy for a pet is most often where empathy for all animals begins. Groups whose positions on pets lack appeal and credibility aren't likely to draw the support they might on other issues, where they may speak with more authority... Most people do care, however, if they find out their tears for animals have been jerked by lies; if they find out their donations to help animals have been spent mainly on further fundraising; if they discover charity heads are paying themselves six-figure salaries... the animal rights movement is now old, but still has momentum, which could be used, together with friction raised by the newly empowered wise use movement... we are at the outset

 

shell of past growth phases, making use of new understanding."