Author Archives: Ruth Steinberger

Animal Hoarding

posted July 15th, 2008 by

What It Is and What Communities Can Do To Halt It…

Shocking stories of homes with sometimes hundreds of animals, languishing in filth and starvation, make headlines with increasing frequency. While the public expresses shock and newspapers blame social conditions resulting in excess animals, few people understand the dynamics of hoarding, a mental illness that results in horrific animal neglect, and often poses health risks to the people around it.

Randall Lockwood, PhD, Senior Vice President, Anti-cruelty Initiatives and Legislative Services of The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) is a leading veterinary forensics researcher and an authority on animal hoarding. Lockwood defines hoarding as, “People who have more animals than they can reasonably care for and the conditions under which they are kept have deteriorated to the point of endangering the health of the animals involved, but also conditions affect the caretaker and others in the household.” He explained, “Hoarding does not simply depend on the number of animals that someone has. The key characteristics are in the conditions in which the animals are kept.” 

Formerly called, ‘animal collectors,’ a term which may denote collection of valuable items like stamps or cars, hoarders confine animals in filth, often in uncomfortably small cages, underfed and dehydrated although food and water are on the premises; dead or dying animals are often found on the premises as well. Hoarding is diagnosed as an obsessive, compulsive disorder. 

Lockwood said, “When we do training we tell officers to take pictures of the food—a characteristic of a hoarder is to have food on the premises that is not fed to the animals, while they literally starve. There will often be medications on the site, also unused or even bottles unopened.” 

Many hoarders share a phobia of death. If not stopped, hoarding is usually fatal for at least some of the victims. It is not unusual to find carcasses of the victims in their freezer. 

There is no single condition that produces hoarding, and a different mental diagnosis may result in hoarding behavior, but Lockwood said, “Most hoarders are of average or above average intelligence, many are of care-giving professions including teachers, nurses, veterinarians, social service workers, doctors—the majority are women who are over 65, but there are many variations.” Because the person may have been in a care-giving profession, in about 25% of animal hoarding cases, other dependent individuals, including an elderly parent, are endangered as well. 

Typical hoarding conditions

A key characteristic is that the hoarder seems oblivious to the suffering. Lockwood said, “They are in denial. You walk into the house and there are inches, or even feet of feces and there are even dead animals there, you can barely catch your breath, and they think there is nothing wrong.  This is a psychological condition.” 

The majority of hoarded animals are cats and dogs, but all other species become victims as well.  

Lockwood has seen a dramatic upsurge in the number of hoarders who pose as rescue organizations. He said, “We used to characterize around 15% of the hoarder cases as so-called ‘rescue hoarders.’ I think that number has grown, partly in response to the No-Kill pressures. The foundation of that philosophy, in many cases, supports hoarders; legitimate organizations have unknowingly supplied hoarders with pets to get them out of their shelters in order to lower their euthanasia rates.”  

Lockwood said, “Close to one third of the hoarding cases now are rescue hoarders.” 

Lockwood gave tips for recognizing hoarders in your community. He said, “Suspect hoarding if a person or rescue will only receive animals at a location away from their facility, such as a parking lot. Another warning sign is if they only receive animals only at strange hours, so you simply do not expect to go past the front door. As with visiting a breeder, if you visit a rescue facility and cannot see how the animals are maintained, that is probably not a legitimate operation. The other characteristic is that the animals go in but do not go out, they keep accumulating animals. They often have no idea of how many animals they have and may express shock that it, “Got out of hand.”  

Lockwood said some hoarders have tried to explain the presence of dead and dying animals by calling themselves hospices, and usually explain the condition of at least some of the animals as having cancer. Lockwood pointed out that even if an animal is sick, legitimate animal hospices do not have animals lying in their own filth, dying of neglect.  

What can a community do to prevent hoarding? A community-based hoarder prevention task force is the best approach. Lockwood said, “We recommend bringing together the groups that are likely to encounter hoarders, including animal control, humane organizations, adult protective services, mental health, the police department and the prosecutor. If hoarding is detected in an early enough stage, you can try to initiate intervention if you have the staffing resources. It is unrealistic to expect a small, private humane organization to go into a situation which includes a serious mental health problem, a zoning issue, and more, and take action without back up.”

When asked if pet limits help, Lockwood responded, “There is a lot of resistance to pet limits, however they can be a good tool for monitoring the hoarder. We do see more and more prosecutions for animal cruelty because it allows the court to impose a long probationary period in order to provide for monitoring.” The pet limit can be the impetus for the initial call to the site.

An action plan is vital and a high volume hoarder is almost like a natural disaster. Lockwood said, “You need a chain of command and a plan to handle the crisis. The emphasis should be on relapse prevention. Hopefully the hoarder will sign over the care, however the greatest fear of most hoarders is that their animals will be seized and put to sleep, and that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because as conditions deteriorate that becomes the most humane thing that can be done. You want to initiate a response before that happens. Monitoring should be part of the plan.”

Lockwood notes that hoarders share common characteristics wherever they are. “We see this all around the country and indeed all around the world.”  He hopes that through education and outreach, hoarders can be prevented from starting their destructive behavior.

Story by Ruth Steinberger

House Bill 3192

posted April 15th, 2008 by

Story by Ruth Steinberger

The bill died in committee on February 18 without even being heard by the Oklahoma House Ag Committee. Many Oklahomans question this outcome, which was immediately condemned by the Tulsa World. 


Puppy producers that sell wholesale, (through dog brokers, dog auctions, etc), are required to be licensed through the USDA, as either Class A or Class B dealers. Breeders that sell directly to the public, either through the internet, flea markets or local advertisements, are exempted from federal licensing and remain unregulated in Oklahoma.  

High volume dog breeders, along with substandard facilities often called ‘puppy mills,’ are rapidly on the rise in Oklahoma.  Confusion surrounds this often secretive industry, which has grown dramatically in the last five years here; Oklahoma now ranks second in the nation in the number of licensed high volume breeders, with an increase of over 70% since 2000.  

According to the USDA, Oklahoma has 12.3% of the total number of USDA licensed pet producing facilities nationwide, with over 600 breeders located here.  The number of unlicensed facilities in Oklahoma is estimated to be two to three times that number.

All other states with a large number of high volume dog producers have state regulations to cover facilities not regulated by the USDA. 

In fact, although a total of five states, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas and Iowa, produce over 65% of the nation’s mass produced puppies, 26 states actually govern the care and selling of producing dogs. In Oklahoma, unless federally licensed, pet producers operate under no regulations at all.

The term ‘puppy mills’ generally refers to substandard high volume puppy (or kitten) producers that turn out animals under very poor conditions, with no regard for animal welfare, the health of the puppies or the consumers who buy them.  While the USDA licensed high volume facilities are expected to meet minimum regulations, the picture for many dogs that are in unlicensed facilities is grim.  

The overwhelming numbers of animal neglect complaints regarding high volume breeders lodged with law enforcement, state agencies or humane societies in Oklahoma do not involve facilities that are USDA inspected. This means they are not compelled to follow any regulations. 

Additionally, during the last two years, over 600 dogs have been removed from facilities posing as rescues. Despite even having non-profit status, these facilities have allowed animals to starve or be used for breeding; an Oklahoma County individual that claimed to be rescuing Pit Bull dogs was actually tied to a dog fighting operation. This bill would have created minimum standards for private shelters and rescues, including regulations for cleanliness and record keeping. 

Many breeding dogs in substandard facilities languish in tiny cages, and in filth. To save money on the cost of housing dogs, puppy mill kennels can consist of anything from small cages made of wood and wire mesh, to tractor-trailer cabs or simple tethers attached to trees.  Cages stacked on top of each other mean that urine and feces run down from one cage onto the one below. It is not uncommon for dogs in these facilities to be blinded by the ammonia burns to their eyes. 

Deborah Howard, President of CAPS, a Massachusetts based organization dedicated to halting puppy mills, said, “Puppy mills operate like a business, except instead of car parts or shampoo, the “goods” are puppies to be sold to consumers.   Much like any other business, there are three basic operating principals; the increase of goods, the decrease of costs, and the maximization of profits.  In puppy mills dogs are bred for quantity, not quality.  As a direct result, breeders, brokers, and pet stores ensure maximum profits by not spending money for proper food, housing, or veterinary care.”

Normal veterinary care is often completely lacking; hiding the truth of their practices, some operators of these facilities have advised customers to avoid veterinarians.  Many substandard facilities perform their own C-sections on female dogs unable to give birth on their own.

When the dogs are no longer able to produce puppies, terrified dogs are sold at the growing number of auctions in our state, with an older dog barely bringing a dollar or two to a greedy seller who will not give the dog a humane end because it would cost money to euthanize the dog.  

Indeed, Oklahoma’s lack of regulations makes our state a haven for those who cannot pass regulations enacted elsewhere. As regulations have tightened in New York and Pennsylvania, estimates are that the number of unregulated breeders that have flocked to Oklahoma in recent years may make us number one in unlicensed facilities. The toll includes consumer issues, fraud, animal neglect and health issues involving untested and unvaccinated dogs. As a cash crop, Oklahoma loses out on the tax revenue in most cases. 

Tara Beres, Director of Safe Haven Center in Midwest City, has assisted in the rescue of puppy mill dogs for the past two years.  Referring to HB 3192, the Pet Quality Assurance Act, Beres noted, “There is no reason that this bill did not pass. The regulations were based on USDA regulations, and those are weaker than most Oklahomans would tolerate if they knew the truth. This bill gave an edge to those that were already licensed as they already meet the criteria, and were exempted from inspections. It’s hard to imagine what happened.” 

With no time to garner support for the bill, the 17 month effort to draft a comprehensive, effective and fair bill died a quiet death in the OK House Ag committee. Many Oklahomans wonder why. Two minor activities reveal that Oklahomans who support humane treatment of dogs and cats used for production need to become vocal now in order to be heard next year. 

The AKC (American Kennel Club) is required to inspect facilities housing AKC-registered dogs that produce seven or more litters in one year.  A January 23, 2008, e-mail from Oklahoma AKC inspector Stacy Mason alleged that USDA standards are too restrictive, and that following the regulations compromised breeders who already exceed the regulations.   Mason’s complaints included excessive fees. However, HB 3192 proposed a licensing fee of $25, while AKC facility inspections start at $250 per inspection. Her plea ended with a sample letter to send to legislators entitled, ‘Kill the bill.’  

The AKC communications office has not responded to calls about inspector Mason’s e-mails. 

Weeks before the legislative session the Humane Society of the United States was advised that a knee jerk reaction from certain legislators could negatively impact the bill and were asked to remain out of the issue as other national groups were doing. Within days of being advised that this legislation could not withstand being tied to their overall agenda, HSUS announced their legislative lobbying day, which was actually noted as impacting the bill by a committee member. Although the day was planned as a national event, HSUS refused the request to cancel the Oklahoma day when advised that it would likely backfire on legislation as has been alleged to have occurred elsewhere. 

Exactly what happened is unknown. The actions by the AKC representative and HSUS are minor but they make it clear that it will take a strong collective voice by Oklahomans about a substandard industry that is giving a black eye to our state and is costing us in the ways that any clandestine industry will do. 

Beres again said that the issue cannot be the wording of the bill but a fear of inspection at all. She referred to the USDA regulations, which stipulate that a dog must have space that equals its length from nose to base of tail, plus six inches, times the same amount of space, plus six inches of head room. This means that an average sized beagle may spend its life in a cage that is around 32” by 32”.  

Beres continued, “Just a few breeders came up with phantom problems with the bill that amounted to fabrications. The fact is that if these regulations scared you, there is something very wrong with the way you are doing things. At one point, they said they wanted to use education to reach people who are doing things wrong. How do you educate people that keeping a dog in filth, often in sheds with no lighting, inadequate diet and no veterinary care is not nice?”

She concluded, “One thing is for certain, very few Oklahomans who are not dog breeders approve of the industry the way it is, and even fewer of those who have purchased poor quality puppies want to see it remain unregulated.” 

Many people are asking why these facilities are leaving other states to come here, and even some breeders who have invested heavily to build kennels in Oklahoma would like to see the movement of substandard kennels to Oklahoma slowed, as it brings low-end competition into the mix.  

Charles Helwig, DVM, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association said, “The Pet Quality Assurance Act, which is HB 3192, is an important step in regulating the commercial kennels in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is one of the largest producing states for puppies and kittens, yet does not have any state regulations. This legislation is a consumer protection bill that is needed to address consumer complaints and animal welfare.” Helwig encouraged citizens who are concerned about this issue to contact legislators to make their voices heard. 

www.caps-web.org
www.okpuppymill.truth.org  

Five Saves Lives

posted January 15th, 2008 by

Story by Ruth Steinberger

Five Saves Lives is a simple concept that could dramatically reduce the number of animals euthanized in shelters across the country without any additional expense, facilities or staffing. In fact, while reducing the number of unwanted litters, fewer resources will be used, money will be saved and animal welfare programs made easier and more streamlined. Does it sound like a dream come true? It is not. 

 

Five Saves Lives  is a brand new nationwide campaign developed to educate the public, as well as veterinarians, on the importance of sterilizing kittens and puppies by five months of age in order to prevent pets from producing early, unwanted litters, which often come as a surprise. A Tulsa spay/neuter program is rolling out the carpet for the concept.

According to Peter Marsh, Esq., of Concord, New Hampshire, a founder of the first statewide spay/neuter program in the US, and co-developer of Five Saves Lives, Oklahoma will be the first state in which a large scale FSL campaign will be rolled out. 

The Five Saves Lives Campaign will emphasize two facts that many pet owners may not be aware of: that health benefits from pet sterilization are the greatest for female cats and dogs if they are sterilized before their first heat cycle and female kittens and puppies can go into heat as early as five months of age. As a result, the best time for sterilizing female pets is at five months of age or earlier. Any delay beyond that time will jeopardize the pet’s health.

Dr. Brenda Griffin

Marsh explained that timely pet sterilization will not only benefit individual cats and dogs, it will also reduce pet overpopulation. A study by Dr. Andrew Rowan, a veterinary expert on pet overpopulation, found that close to 90% of all kittens and puppies are born to females who are sterilized after they have given birth to at least one litter. Many of these litters are unplanned and unwanted.

‘Early age’ spay/neuter normally refers to pets that are at least eight weeks old and weigh at least two pounds. According to research accepted by the American Veterinary Medical Association, early age spay/neuter is safe.  Five Saves Lives is a modest approach to the early age concept, moving the timeline back just a few weeks from the traditional six month recommendation.   For veterinarians uncomfortable with the more drastic change from six months to eight weeks, this protocol can have dramatic benefits with a less drastic change in recommendations. 

In support of the concept of preventing the first litter, SPAY OK, a high volume income based spay/neuter clinic located in North Tulsa, will reduce the price of surgeries for kittens and puppies less than five months of age as of January 1, 2008. Spaying or neutering a puppy will cost $20 and a kitten will cost $15.

 

Esther Mechler, Executive Director of SPAY USA and co-founder of Five Saves Lives said, “Millions of kittens born in this country are in ‘whoops litters,’ meaning they are born accidentally. Many are born because some veterinarians are not spaying cats before six months old.” Noting that cats mature at four to five months of age, Mechler said, “Those few weeks, the ones between four and a half months and six months, are when a lot of unwanted litters are produced. Moving the surgery back in time just a few weeks will save millions of lives on a nationwide scale.” 

Mechler said, “We can gain a lot of ground by changing the timeline slightly. It doesn’t cost a penny more to spay a few weeks earlier, it is easier on animal shelters because the litters are just not born.” 

Brenda Griffin, DVM, MS, Diplomate ACVIM (Internal Medicine), Director of Clinical Programs for the Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program at Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine said, “Five Saves Lives refers to spaying and neutering pets before sexual maturity, and that not only prevents the birth of unwanted litters, it improves the health of the pets having surgery—and that’s what people need to get.”

Brenda Griffin, DVM, MS Diplomate ACVIM (internal Medicine), Director of Clinincal Programs for the Maddie's Shelter Medicine Program at Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, Ithaca, NY

Griffin explained the health benefits to animals sterilized before sexual maturity. She said, “For female dogs you virtually eliminate the risk of breast cancer, which is the most common type of cancer in female dogs. Griffin added, “Everyone has known someone with breast cancer, yet breast cancer is much more common in dogs than it is in people.”  Griffin continued, “If the dog begins to come into season you reduce that benefit. In unspayed dogs we also commonly see serious uterine infections (called pyometra) which are often handled as emergencies once they get older.” Griffin said, “A parallel situation exists for cats.” 

Griffin explained that for male pets, neutering decreases the risk of prostate disease, perianal tumors and hernias.  She said, “We also decrease scent marking by dogs and spraying by cats, as well as inter-male aggression. Many people neuter working dogs because it means that they keep their mind on the job. Less marking, spraying and fighting and better working ability means better pets, so you see, Five Saves Lives is life-saving in many ways!” 

Tulsa Pets Magazine asked Dr. Griffin what she views as the most important part of pet ownership. She said, “Spaying or neutering a young pet is one of the most important things people can do for the life of the animal.  Vaccination, sterilization, some basic training and making sure your pet has identification are the most important things you can do for them.”

Judy Kishner, President of SPAY OK, said, “In addition to the health benefits of spaying pets before sexual maturity, the failure to spay a pet in a timely manner results in euthanasias, animal abandonment, wasted shelter resources and more. An unwanted litter is a completely preventable tragedy.”

The Very Real Importance of Spaying and Neutering

posted October 15th, 2007 by

Story by Ruth Steinberger

The number of animals entering the Tulsa City Shelter each year alarms individuals and humane organizations striving toward a reduction in animal suffering in Tulsa. 
According to city records, in 2006, 17,734 animals entered the Tulsa City Animal Shelter. Of those 12,541, or 70.7%, were killed. Whether resulting from ignorance or a lack of caring, this tragedy costs over 1.5 million dollars per year. While the intake number changes slightly from one year to the next, the relative percentage of animals released through adoption or to rescue organizations, or being euthanized, changes little.   

Without increased support for an aggressive spay/neuter effort, including enforcement of existing laws, the numbers will be unlikely to drop. 

Regulations in the City of Tulsa require all pets over the age of six months to be spayed or neutered, unless the owner has a breeder or hobbyist exemption.  This means that any resident of the City of Tulsa who advertises to sell or give away pets in the classifieds, and who does not have this permit, is literally advertising that they have broken the law. While budget constraints prevent enforcement except when the animal is reported as a public nuisance, statistics show that enforcement of the spay/neuter ordinance is imperative to reducing shelter intakes, addressing many animal-related complaints, and based on the findings in other cities, would likely save money. 

Enforcement of Tulsa’s spay/neuter ordinance is a humane issue, a public health issue, and a budget issue. Overall, whether or not pets are altered affects the communities in which they live.  Responsible pet ownership, which includes sterilization, determines if a dog will be a good canine citizen or will become a taxpayer burden.  

For all municipalities, the spaying and neutering of pets in the community is the single greatest element in creating a humane solution to shelter overcrowding.  It is not possible to build a big enough shelter, or provide enough adoptive families, to address pet overpopulation. 

Hundreds of examples of spay/neuter efforts resulting in dramatically lowered shelter intake rates exist. In Oklahoma, the cities of Okmulgee and Bristow have both dramatically reduced shelter intakes by offering sterilization services for low-income residents, with the  

1) Bristow shelter intake being reduced by over 85% and  2) Okmulgee at more than 75%. There are no examples of a euthanasia rate being humanely lowered by a primary effort aimed at an increase in adoptions in the absence of effective spay/neuter programs. 

Euthanasias are driven overwhelmingly by the number of animals entering the shelters, not simply by a failure to send enough animals out. Ultimately, fewer animals entering the shelters translates to fewer animals destroyed. 

Judy Kishner, founder and President of SPAY OK, a non-profit spay/neuter clinic operating in north Tulsa since 2004, said, “A walk through the city shelter is a sobering experience. If you figure that most of the dogs originated in Tulsa, those animals are testimony to the need to enforce this law. These are mixed breed dogs that would have been prevented had this law not been broken by the owner of the mother dog or cat.” 

Referencing that some criteria deems dogs under three years to be ‘adoptable,’ Kishner continued, “Sadly, each day that this law is ignored provides the promise of at least three more years of a shelter full of unwanted dogs needing homes. It’s like bailing out a boat without fixing the leak. The cycle needs to end.”  Kishner added, “This is an issue for everyone.  Roaming animals, looking to breed and wandering neighborhoods, affect quality of life for humans. They don’t have to bite you to be a nuisance.”

The average dog will have three to five homes in her life, and less than one in ten dogs will remain in one home for life. Most mixed breed canines will become unwanted by age two.  Simply, too many dogs are bad for the community, the taxpayers and the animals themselves. 

Over 86% of dog bites requiring a hospital visit involve unsterilized (intact) animals. In fact, although the breeds often thought of as dangerous dogs, including Pit Bulls and Rottweilers, account for a disproportionately high number of serious bites and fatal maulings, these incidents overwhelmingly  involve unneutered animals.

Spay/neuter is also the backbone of all efforts to reduce animal suffering.   From the humane perspective, whether or not a pet is sterilized is a predictor of whether or not the animal will remain in the home or be released to a shelter or even abandoned, and it is the single greatest predictor of whether a dog will actually become the victim of an accident or an act of cruelty.  

Roughly 80% of canines found dead on the road are intact males, and the majority of animal cruelty cases involving canines  involve intact adult males as well. 

Jim Weverka, Animal Control Manager for Lincoln, Nebraska and two time past President of NACA (National Animal Control Association) explained the dollars and sense side of this issue in 2002. He cited an advisory board in Lincoln that formulates animal control policies based on strong city wide enforcement and on avoiding policies that are impossible to enforce.  For example, most animal related complaints made to municipalities involve behavior that is directly related to breeding including roaming, fighting and property destruction through marking, etc. While Tulsa’s animal control ordinance mandates that cats must be kept indoors or on the owner’s property, in Lincoln cats that are allowed outdoors must be sterilized. Weverka pointed out the common sense of this issue, “Because of roaming and other breeding related issues, unaltered animals are seven times more likely to be picked up by the municipality. That costs money.” Ultimately, these issues also tie up the courts and law enforcement personnel as well.

Peter Marsh, nationally known for developing the first successful statewide spay/neuter program, a program which reduced the kill rate in New Hampshire by 80% in under four years, explained that spay/neuter is absolutely the first line in halting animal cruelty. Marsh told Tulsa Pets Magazine, “You simply cannot move forward on humane issues without first addressing pet overpopulation. It is hard to tell people that animals are important in an environment in which they are disposable.” 

A Study of Animal Shelters in Oklahoma: What are the Numbers?

posted July 15th, 2007 by
By Ruth Steinberger
 The fate of animals in shelters across Oklahoma remains a hot topic, with euthanasia rates, rescues,
 
 A 2006 survey of all Oklahoma counties, Focus Oklahoma, revealed that the collection, handling, release and disposal of unwanted animals disparate from one area of the state to the next, humane concerns often fall through the cracks and laws intended to protect unwanted animals, including the 1986 Dog and Cat Sterilization Act, are completely ignored throughout much of the state.
Yet, few Oklahomans realize that much of our state is not served by any animal shelter at all. That fact, combined with a lack of record keeping many shelters that do exist, renders a vague and disturbing picture for unwanted animals across much of Oklahoma.

quality of care and methods of euthanasia open to discussion. The issue is an emotionally charged one.

Oklahoma law allows counties with populations over 200,000 to establish an animal shelter. However, currently only five of the 77 Oklahoma counties have a public animal shelter for residents of the entire county. These five include Tulsa, Oklahoma, Washington (Bartlesville), Carter (Ardmore) and Pittsburg (McAllister).

In the remaining 72 counties, some towns have animal control and a shelter, others contract with other towns or private entities to collect unwanted dogs and some simply do nothing. Alfalfa, Dewey, Grant and Harper Counties have no towns or cities with animal shelters within their borders.

However, while roughly 150 cities and towns throughout Oklahoma operate city pounds, residents who live outside of the city limits have noplace at which to release an unwanted dog or cat.  

While it is difficult to get a picture of the accurate number of animals entering Oklahoma shelters, it is impossible to get the numbers of those that fall through these cracks. Limited accurate euthanasia records may be available (based on method, or combination of methods, and therefore payment), but records of animals entering the shelters are actually rare outside of larger municipalities.

Additionally, a 1981 Oklahoma State Court decision exempted cities with populations under 10,000 from the state euthanasia law, essentially upholding the right of these cities to use shooting as a method of killing unwanted dogs, deeming it to be humane. Strong public opinion, and a lack of mandated record keeping, means that many cities simply do not reveal the method they use to dispose of dogs and how many dogs are involved.

The fate of unwanted pets in rural Oklahoma is largely unknown, and often tragic. Jamee Suarez Howard, President of Oklahoma Alliance for Animals said, “We have some idea of the numbers entering shelters. And some idea of how much of the state has no access to shelters. Combined, these numbers show the size of the issue. It is a terrible thing any time that animals are suffering.”

Animal disposal in places without shelters (which includes over half of rural Oklahoma) includesabandonment, shooting, giveaways and drowning. A limited number of “adoptable,” animals go,into private shelters. However, for older, large, sick, or ugly dogs, there is little refuge.  Dogs, and even some cats, are collected by dealers for sale at flea markets or to research labs or animal fighting rings.

Additionally, Focus Oklahoma found that between one third and one half of the estimated 150 municipal facilities collect strays only, refusing owner surrenders.  Outside of large shelters, relatively few public shelters in Oklahoma accept cats.  Without any continuity, people needing to release an unwanted animal call around in desperation, leading to a windfall for some fraudulent organizations that offer inadequate care to the animals in their custody and again, ignore the sterilization mandate for Oklahoma animal shelters.  Additionally, the lack of facilities has caused some public officials to actually rely on unacceptable “rescue” channels, an issue tied to some largescale animal removals in rural Oklahoma in recent years, including notorious ones in Stigler and Vici, Oklahoma.

Disturbingly, Focus Oklahoma research revealed that an estimated less than one fifth of rural shelters comply with the 1986 state law requiring sterilization of animals released from shelters.  Animals are released without mandatory contracts and deposits, without sterilization and with no follow up.

Currently, outside of Tulsa and Oklahoma counties, roughly 51% of Oklahomans live in areas in which public services are provided by the county.

The percentage of people served by municipal animal control facilities varies from one portion of Oklahoma to the next. Southeast Oklahoma has the highest rural population, and the lowest is in the Oklahoma City metro area.

Roughly 64% of households in southeast Oklahoma have no place at which to release an unwanted animal. According to Animal Control Officers in rural areas, county residents typically abandon unwanted pets within town limits at night. Although this activity is against the law in Oklahoma, it is nearly impossible to catch the perpetrator.  According to Mark Harman, Animal Control Officer of Bristow, OK, “Unwanted animals in rural areas never even enter the discussion about shelter animals in our state. They are conveniently invisible. No one is speaking up for them.”

Harman gets calls daily from county residents who have a dog they no longer want or that is a stray. He is not permitted to accept the dogs and advises callers to complain to their county commissioners. He said, “These dogs just disappear from the radar screen and everyone seems to be comfortable with that. Obviously, this has to involve tens of thousands of dogs each year because this lack of services involves half the population of Oklahoma.”

Harman added, “These animals are literally ignored by officials, rescues, humane societies, everyone. If a dog is cute and an adoption fee can change hands, someone will find a place for it. But for the ones that are not cute or small, and that involves most of the calls I get, there is a big blind eye turned toward them. It is unconscionable that our county officials refuse to face this issue.”

In August 2005, Harman received a call from a Creek County woman. An injured stray dog lay in a ditch in front of her home; the temperature was over 100 degrees. Unable to leave city limits Harman tried unsuccessfully for hours to get the sheriff’s office to send out an officer or to locate someone able to euthanize the dog. No one was authorized to go; the dog ultimately remained in the ditch until it died.

Harman pointed out this issue leads to terrible animal suffering or people takingmatters into their own hands and killing animals by inhumane methods. He said, “This is not just an animal control or taxpayer issue;the lack of county wide animal sheltering is a very, very serious humane problem.”

Page 6 of 6123456