In 1974, Beck expressed frustration that essential epidemiological factors were continuing to be overlooked when problems of dog abandonment and surrender were considered.¹ He pointed out that the problems in 1974 were no different back in 1920 when similar popular remedies had failed. It is depressing to note that even today, almost 80 years on, weíre no further forward.

Recommended remedies for the unwanted dog problem have always tended to concentrate on intervention at the pet level. Subsidised neuter initiatives are a perfect example of pet level intervention. But the failure of these schemes suggests that popular paradigms of the unwanted pet problem have been wrong. When we look for causes, should we be pointing the finger at careless pet ownership instead of excessive breeding capacity?

If the cause is at owner level, then intervention needs to be directed at owners rather than pets. In other words, we should be intervening to change the human factors involved in pet abandonment and surrender.

We move on now to look at three human factors contributing to the unwanteds problem: demand factors, owner personality factors and attitude and ignorance factors.

1. The demand factor

We now know that the wastage rate of dogs through abandonment or surrender is more a matter of over-demand than over-supply.^2,3,4

The supply of dogs seems to be driven by demand like most other consumer commodities. If people want puppies, then puppies will be on sale even if they need to be imported from other places. Most discarded dogs are the product of inappropriate acquisition. The wrong type of dog (cartoon) or the dog acquired for the wrong reason will always end up being at least neglected and probably worse.

As Marshall observed in 1979 some 80% of dogs processed at U.S. pounds and animal shelters are only there through a lack of sincere owner commitment.⁵ Upton and Pallas have made similar comments more recently about dogs at shelters and pounds in Australia.^6,7

Much of the breeding industry is based on creating an artificial demand for puppies.

For further information, click to see:

ï more about the demand factor

2. Owner personality factors

Personality-linked reasons for failing to desex dogs or adopt other measures to prevent pet breeding can be categorised:

ï desexing as pet mutilation

ï desexing as self-castration

ï desexing as anti-breed

ï desexing as anti-pleasure

Some pet owners derive pleasure from the sexual activity of their dogs.

ï desexing as financially unwise

ï desexing as too difficult

Subsidised neuter schemes can never be seriously considered to contribute anything to ëa better understanding of the problemí.

In reviewing the types of pet owners mentioned above, two broad owner categories are apparent. Firstly there are those who just donít care enough to make any serious attempt to prevent unnecessary breeding. Secondly there are those who get something out of breeding their pets or at least maintaining their pets in a procreative capable state.

For further information, click to see:

ï more about owner personality factors

3. Attitude and ignorance factors

Expenditure on pets has a low priority for uncommitted owners.^8,9 The plight of unwanted pets is of little concern to people for whom animal welfare has a low priority.^10,11 In many cases, pet abandonment, pet surrender, casual pet acquisition and ungoverned pet breeding are a result of carelessness rather than lack of owner resources.

As with many other forms of social irresponsibility, ignorance also plays a major part in the discarded pet pathway. People sometimes incorrectly maintain that pets should be allowed to breed because this improves their maturity and general demeanour.¹² Other owners wrongly believe that desexed pets are likely to become overweight because they have been desexed.^12,13

The influence of carelessness and ignorance factors on overall breeding rates has been quantified in several studies including dog population research in Townsville. When owners of currently-owned breeding female dogs in the Townsville study were asked why they had not prevented their dogs from breeding, none responded that the cost of desexing was a reason.¹⁴ This result was similar to that obtained from a survey in Oregon where cost was mentioned as a factor by only 5% of people who owned unsterilised animals.¹⁵

Clearly, the effect of subsidised neutering on overall pet population breeding is likely to be of little importance. Cost of desexing is not a primary issue.

Another element to be considered in the search for causes of the unwanted dog problem is the dynamics of the urban dog population.

Every community includes at least a few people who maintain one or more part-time pets by providing food (and maybe shelter) for them. While these people often act with the welfare of the animals in mind, providing for part-time pets in this way tends to be more of a hindrance than a help. Under such conditions, these stray animals are quick to exploit the resources provided and they breed accordingly. Cats are particularly adept at this.

When people move, sometimes their pets get left behind or get lost soon after the move. They can often survive for some time on the streets but eventually they turn up as strays in the animal shelters. Their plight has little to do with neuter access or the cost of desexing services.

To be useful, any analysis of the unwanted dog problem must attempt to quantify the contribution of various factors to the overall problem.

Not all dogs euthanased are a product of either pet over-supply or over-demand. National pet populations in the millions will inevitably produce hundreds of thousands of aged, debilitated and incompatible pets annually. Yet euthanasia statistics are sometimes quoted without reference to these other reasons for death.

Under circumstances where pet attrition through neglect and abandonment is apparently high, neuter clinics are unlikely to remedy this situation. The rapid turnover of pets in a careless society is a cycle driven by pet owner attitude more than by pet breeding ability. Even if large numbers of desexed animals could be introduced into such a general pet community, the effect would only be temporary because the demand for puppies would remain.

For further information, click to see:

ï more about natural attrition factors

The final element of the unwanteds problem that we want to raise here is the cultural change that many of us have witnessed over the last few decades.

Back at the end of the 50s when we were at primary school, there always seemed to be someone in the neighbourhood who had a new litter of puppies or kittens to show their friends. Families who didnít actually have breeding pets were almost exceptional! Breeding pets were part of our way of life in those days. But the pet attrition rate was exceptionally high also.

An average childhood one or two generations back would normally have encompassed the consecutive lifespans of five or more separate pets. Mean pet longevity was probably less than 2 years at that time. Viral epidemics like Canine Distemper and Feline Panleucopaenia, endemic disease such as intestinal parasitism and heartworms, traumatic vehicle injury and all manner of other misadventure took a very heavy toll indeed. Pets excess to demand were killed at birth; this was considered normal procedure.

There have been enormous advances in the science and application of pet health over recent decades. Epidemic and endemic diseases are now under control; pets are much less likely to roam and get run over or simply go missing. Pet longevity has increased greatly. But the public attitude to pet breeding has changed at a slightly slower pace. The "just-one litter" mentality that is still quite common may be a symptom of this slow pace of cultural change.

1. Beck AM. 1974. The ecology of unwanted and uncontrolled pets. In: Conference on the Ecology of the Surplus Dog and Cat Problem: proceedings (Chicago Illinois: May 1974): 31.

2. Fredrickson LE. 1975. Pet planning programs. Mod Vet Pract 56: 93. 

3. Schneider R. 1975. Observations on overpopulation of dogs and cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 167: 281.

4. Searle MC. 1979. Overpopulation: the perennial problem. In: Allen RD, Westbrook WH, editors. The Handbook of Animal Welfare: biomedical, psychological and ecological aspects of pet problems and control. New York: Garland STPM Press: 47.

5. Marshall RT. 1979. United States of America conferences. In: Allen RD, Westbrook WH, editors. The Handbook of Animal Welfare: biomedical, psychological and ecological aspects of pet problems and control. New York: Garland STPM Press: 119-126.

6. Upton B. 1992. Animal shelter management, animal control and animal welfare. In: Murray RW, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the First National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Brisbane, 1992). Mackay QLD: Chiron Media: 138-149.

7. Pallas F. 1995. Problems: a council perspective. In: Paxton DW, Boland P, editors. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Melbourne, 1995). Sydney: AVA: 11-17.

8. Sloboby RI. 1976. Surgical neutering as a pet animal population reduction tool. In: National Conference on Dog and Cat Control: proceedings (Denver Colorado: 1976).

9. Stockner PK. 1991. The economics of spaying and neutering: market forces and owners' values affecting pet population control. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 198: 1180.

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

11. 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.

12. Olson PN, Nett TM, Bowen RA, Amann RP, Sawyer HR, Gorell TA, Niswender GD, Pickett BW, Phemister RD. 1986. A need for sterilisation, contraceptives, and abortifacients: abandoned and unwanted pets: part 1: current methods of sterilizing pets. Compend Cont Ed 8: 87.

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

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

15. Rowan AN, Williams J. 1987. The success of companion animal management programs: a review. Anthrozoos 1: 110.