Clearly a number of diverse factors contribute to the unwanteds problem that we see today. Common sense suggests that such a complex problem is unlikely to be resolved by a simplistic response such as establishing subsidised neuter clinics. Instead a range of measures are required: local government measures, veterinary measures, private measures, animal shelter measures and research measures. We consider the options below.

Dog control bylaws exist in much the same form wherever people keep dogs in urban communities. These bylaws are codes of responsible dog ownership, designed first to educate, and second, to enforce. Their targets are community dog problems (including indiscriminate breeding) caused by irresponsible ownership. Almost invariably dog registration and dog restraint are central concepts. Universal compliance with these two types of bylaws would reduce the unwanted dog problem. Compliance can be achieved by two overlapping measures, community education and enforcement.

For further information, click to see:

ï More about local government measures

Veterinarians are criticized on the grounds that high veterinary fees for desexing procedures have compounded the unwanted pet problem. It is often suggested that ordinary pet owners canít afford surgical desexing services.

There is no evidence to suggest that pet owners are exploited by veterinarians charging excessively for surgical desexing procedures. The veterinary profession can, however, be faulted on the grounds that they have failed to market the merit of this surgical procedure. Nor have they been very effective in telling the public why they charge as they do.

For further information, click to see:

ï More about veterinary measures

In 1979, Marshall pointed out:

Perhaps the largest factor contributing to overpopulation can be categorised as the uneducated and/or irresponsible pet owner. This is possibly a reflection on our society, which creates a larger government, a greater dependence upon it, and less individual responsibility, resulting in pets becoming another disposable product.¹

According to Marshall, subsidising pet owner expenses (including subsidising desexing costs) undermines the cornerstone of responsible pet ownership by downgrading the concept of personal obligation. People are responsible for pet problems (photograph).¹ Anything that detracts from the essential concept of pet owner onus has to be a serious retrograde step. Subsidised neutering does just that.

It seems unfair that the unpleasant job of wholesale euthanasia should be left to animal shelters. However, the fact that the lionís share of unwanted pet euthanasia falls to animal shelters may be a problem of their own making. When animal shelters advertise as agencies providing shelter and care for strays and other unwanted pets, strays and other unwanted pets is exactly what people bring. Euthanasia inevitably ends up being a big part of the job.

Also, disposing of a pet through a shelter usually costs nothing.

The animal shelter safety net for unwanted pets may paradoxically be acting as a positive contributing cause of pet-owner carelessness. By actively promoting their role as pet rehoming agencies, animal shelters encourage pet-owner carelessness which, in turn, leads to a steady supply of unwanteds. Because of this, wherever you build an animal shelter, it will be quickly filled with discarded pets.

The maintenance of a steady and permanent supply of unwanted pet animals may actually be a covert goal for less responsible shelters. With no unwanteds, theyíre out of a job!

For further information, click to see:

ï More about animal shelter measures

Even though the plight of surrendered and abandoned companion animals has been a cause of considerable public disquiet for decades, there is little statistical information on this animal welfare problem in Australia and New Zealand. Rowan made a similar observation about the situation in North America when he said: ëÖ considering the amount of time, effort and money spent to control pet populations, it is, to say the least, surprising that so little evaluation has been done.²

Pet euthanasia statistics derived from pounds, animal shelters and veterinary practices are usually unqualified estimates. Without reliable baseline data, better population management methods canít be evaluated and new models canít be devised.

Computer software designed for data filing and epidemiological analysis is available off-the-shelf today, as are PCs that are capable of computing the data for even the biggest of shelters. The raw data is there just waiting to be accessed and analysed.³

Unfortunately, animal shelter management presently gives little priority to such statistical research. There seems, in the past, to have been more interest in coping with the problem than in trying to prevent it. One wonders, inevitably, if coping has been the preferred option.

For further information, click to see:

ï More about research measures

1. 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.

2. Rowan AN. 1991. What we need to learn from epidemiologic surveys pertaining to pet overpopulation. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 198: 1233.

3. 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.