There are a number of things in the comments by Hoyt¹ at the beginning of this chapter, that can help pull the material presented above together:

ï ëWe are sick and tired of being called murderers.í 

Persons espousing a dedication to the care of neglected animals are likely to be disturbed by being labelled animal murderers. When responsibility for this euthanasia task is forced onto animal shelter staff by the very public that seem to be applying this offensive label, the hurt is likely to be compounded. Under these circumstances it is understandable that animal shelter personnel feel bitter and hostile towards the community they serve.

We feel that the community-at-large does not in fact see animal shelter personnel as murderers. The few people out there who are aware of this problem simply prefer to turn a blind eye. If they have any feelings on the matter at all, it is to be grateful that animal shelter personnel are prepared to tidy up the mess.

If this is correct, then the label murderer is self-applied by animal shelter personnel who have difficulty coping with the reality of their role as a disposal service for careless pet owners. The label is more a reflection of how animal shelter workers see themselves than how others see them.

ï ëCan you blame us for seeking a more positive approach?í 

The answer has to be ëNo.í Killing discarded but otherwise healthy pet animals is a dreadful thing to have to do. It really is a bad business. The plight of discarded pets is a disgusting statement about the integrity of so many members of our society.

ï ëSurely there must be a better way, a more positive way, a more humane way?í 

The answer has to be ëYes.í But there are no magic wand remedies. The road will be hard and long.

We have argued that the answer is not subsidised neutering. But what is it?

There are three immediate issues that cry out for attention.

1. The knowledge gap has to be bridged.

It is axiomatic that problems can never be solved until they are properly understood. The focus needs to be on the owners of unwanted pets. Pet factors are obviously important but people factors more so. It is encouraging to see respected professionals like Olson, Bonnett, Glickman and Moulton² so enthusiastically promoting research as an urgent priority. Adequate resources for quality research in this field can be made available by redirecting funds currently being invested in subsidised neutering schemes.

2. There is both factual and anecdotal evidence that major benefits in animal welfare can flow from dedicated efforts to improve general standards of MPM at local government level.

The benefits of full dog registration programs in reducing the numbers of unwanted and abandoned dogs as described by Moulton seem remarkable.³

It is unfortunate that in most municipalities, MPM has not yet progressed much past catching and impounding strays. In most places, important aspects of MPM, including full registration, full compliance with restraint bylaws, public awareness of pet problems and pet-owner education, are yet to be achieved.

3. The problem of unwanted pets is of paramount concern to people involved with animal shelter management.

Decades of effort invested in voucher schemes, shelter neutering and spay clinics bear testimony to this fact. However, it is doubtful whether the general public sees the unwanted pet problem as any kind of issue at all! Animal shelters are understandably reluctant to make news of their role in euthanasing so many abandoned pets. Mass euthanasia is hardly an ideal subject for animal shelter image promotion. However, some way must be found to get the real story about animal shelters into the public arena.

 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. Kahler S. 1992. Stalking a killer: the disease of euthanasia. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 201: 973- .

3. Moulton G, Wright P, Rindy K. 1991. The role of animal shelters in controlling pet overpopulation. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 198: 1172-1176.