Subsidised neutering has been tried over the many years since 1974 when Hoyt spoke to the Chicago conference. There is no evidence that this approach to solve the unwanted dog problem ever warranted the optimistic expectations of delegates.

In opening his address at the Chicago conference, Hoyt said:¹

To me has been given the somewhat unenviable task of setting forth the case for the need of spay/neuter clinics as part of an overall program to reduce the vast and ever growing numbers of surplus dogs and cats populating our society today.

Later in the paper, Hoyt also said:

I shall concentrate on stating the case for spay/neuter clinics not a defence for their success.

There is a suggestion from these comments that even the author of the paper titled ëA case for spay/neuter clinicsí was more confident that something had to be done, than that spay/neuter clinics were the real answer. The evidence supports his disquiet.

How is subsidy delivered? There are three frequent methods: subsidised neuter schemes, shelter neuter schemes and indigent dog-owner schemes.

The essential component of all subsidised neuter schemes is that someone other than the owner pays for all or part of the cost of pet desexing. The amount of the subsidy may be contributed by veterinary practitioners, by council ratepayers, or by some combination of these. Usually there is some kind of voucher device to provide a document link between the source of the dog, the place of desexing, and possibly the agency providing the concession.

For decades now, animal welfare institutions around the world have invested heavily in the subsidised neuter approach. Despite this effort, little success has been achieved: the number of unwanted dogs appears to be increasing² and the dog population problem continues to be a serious issue.³

Seeking remedies for the unwanted dog problem through subsidised neutering sounds and looks attractive. But history suggests otherwise. The only things changed by subsidised neuter schemes is where the desexing procedure is carried out and who picks up the tab. One thing that doesnít change is how many dogs actually get desexed; that stays pretty much the same. Similarly, there is no evidence that these schemes effectively reduce the rate of dog abandonment, improve dog-owner responsibility, or help solve general of MPM problems for local government.^4,5

In 1983, Beck pointed out that desexing schemes for rehomed dogs at animal shelters and pounds couldnít possibly control breeding in the general dog population.⁶ This conclusion was supported by research carried out in Townsville Qld in 1988.⁷ Only 7% of the Townsville dog population had been obtained from the pound or the animal shelter at that time, and this proportion was falling. Also, it could be argued that the right kind of new owner would attend to the desexing anyway. Spending money on a neuter scheme involving dogs specifically obtained from these sources seemed pointless.

Nowell says that spending time and money on animal shelter neuter schemes is like raking leaves in a wind storm.⁸ Raking leaves in a wind storm is fine if that is what you like to do. But donít expect things to look much different when you are finished.

In defence of animal shelter neuter schemes, it is important to consider how badly animal shelter staff are affected by the unpleasant business of large-scale euthanasia. According to Arluke, a range of methods have evolved in animal shelters for coping with the trauma of working with unwanted pets.⁹ These methods include careful staff employment techniques, concentrating on technical aspects rather than the deed of euthanasia, identifying positive aspects of caring for unwanted pets, and promoting task-mate support systems.

Although not mentioned by Arluke, the activity of desexing dogs for rehoming may be another kind of coping measure adopted by animal shelter personnel. From the perspective of people working within the animal shelter environment, desexing dogs for rehoming looks like a positive activity. While this procedure appears unlikely to ever significantly affect the overall effect of dog neglect, nevertheless it may help staff cope with the distressing reality of their other work.

On the subject of desexing schemes for indigent dog owners the situation is much the same. Iris Nowell, in her book, The Dog Crisis, in 1978 observed:⁸

People who say they cannot afford to sterilise their pets arouse no sympathy today. The animal welfare movement continually reminds people ... If you can afford a pet, you can afford to spay it.

Once again, even though these comments are nearly 20 years old, the philosophy still has integrity. The concept of owner onus is still of paramount importance now, just as it was then. Subsidised neutering of the dogs of indigent persons has little to offer as a remedy for the general plight of unwanted dogs.

1. Hoyt JA. 1974. A case for spay/neuter clinics. In: Conference on the Ecology of the Surplus Dog and Cat Problem: proceedings (Chicago Illinois, May 1974): 59.

2. Olson PN, Moulton G, Nett TM, Salman MD. 1991. Pet overpopulation: a challenge for companion animal veterinarians in the 1990s. J. Am. Vet. Med. 198: 1115.

3. Carter CN. 1990. Pet population control: another decade without solutions? Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 197: 192.

4. Arkow P. 1991. Animal control laws and enforcement. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 198: 1164.

5. Beaver BV. 1983. Clinical classification of canine aggression. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 35-43.

6. Beck AM. 1983. Animals in the city. In: Katcher AH, Beck AM, editors. New Perspectives on our Lives with Companion Animals. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press: 237.

7. Murray RW. 1991. An Analysis of the Characteristics, Social Impact and Management of the Townsville Dog Population. MSc Thesis. Townsville: James Cook University.

8. Nowell I. 1978. The Dog Crisis. New York: St. Martin's Press.

9. Arluke A. 1991. Coping with euthanasia: a case study of shelter culture. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 198: 1176.