Click here to find your local legislator.

PawsWatch's position

We are happy to see open debate on this critical subject. The single most important fact of every discussion we are having today is that we all want the same thing: We all want more spay/neuter -- and accordingly, less euthanasia. VSA has been doing fabulous rescue work for a very long time, and as we have always said, we respect their acheivements. We disagree only on the means to the commonly desired goal, of more spay/neuter and less euthanasia.

We welcome good, solid evidence for anything which will achieve that end.

As PawsWatch stated in February, and whenever asked since then, our position is NOT that requiring spay/neuter is a bad thing.
Our position is that requiring spay/neuter (with penalties to enforce it) will not work unless and until funding is available to make it affordable.

Numerous large and successful low-cost spay/neuter programs around the country (for example, NH, Maine, Alabama, Jacksonville County FLA) have provided an opportunity to see what people will do when they can afford spay/neuter. In each of these instances, where funding was available, spay/neuter skyrocketed, and euthanasia declined. When unlimited, affordable spay/neuter was available, demand averaged five surgeries per 1000 people per year in a population. Taking into account Rhode Island's population size, and higher cost of living (so that vets will need to be subsidized by about $70 per surgery), that translates to a cost of about $350. per 1000 people per year (recorded numbers do not decline). For a state of roughly a million to 1.1 million people, this indicates a cost of approximately $350,000 per year.

In addition, that $350,000 must be sustainable over the long term. That means that there must be a plan in place to replace consistently depleted funds.

We do not see that funding in place yet, in Rhode Island. That is why we also support the work of RI Foundation -- which is looking for a way to make spay/neuter affordable. The proposed bill includes a $1. price increase for licensing, which will not be enough. It dictates that penalties will be directed to spay/neuter, but experience shows that substantial revenue cannot be collected in penalties. Also, VSA has mentioned having some grant monies available, which represents really good hard fundraising work; but it does not reach the amount needed.

There ARE successfully self-regenerating programs in place around the country, and Rhode Island needs that. Once such a program makes spay/neuter affordable, then it will make sense to require spay/neuter.

Experience nationwide shows that the requirement alone (without the funding) does NOT work.

The oft-cited San Mateo example needs closer inspection. Mandatory spay/neuter was passed as law in San Mateo county 15 years ago, when other funding solutions had not been developed, and people were desperate for a solution. The law applied only to the unincorporated parts of the county -- that is, areas without municipal governments, so, no cities or towns. After the law was passed, euthanasia rates in the cities (not governed by the law) declined. Euthanasia rates in the unincorporated areas (where the law was in affect) actually increased markedly. This is a straight-forward, documented fact. That is what PawsWatch does not want for Rhode Island. No one would like more than us, to believe there is a quick solution to overpopulation. But we are faced with hard facts. It didn't work. And San Mateo is a very wealthy area, where the euthanasia rate was relatively low to start with.

Now if we could just get funding in place -- using the carrot instead of the stick, or a carrot with a stick -- but not a stick by itself -- then the statistics are very different.

When Maddie's Fund made affordable spay/neuter available in Alabama, 36,000 surgeries were done within the first two years. In an area of about 4 million people, that's roughly 4.5 surgeries per 1000 people, per year, right in line with the national average of what's needed.

When the Humane Alliance in Asheville, NC, made affordable spay/neuter available, their euthanasia rate dropped by 70%. When New Hampshire made affordable spay/neuter available, their euthanasia rate dropped by 77%. That is what PawsWatch wants for Rhode Island.

PawsWatch would like to work in concert with anyone who will help to make spay/neuter affordable. PawsWatch recognizes that once spay/neuter is affordable, there is a place also for negative incentive, to prod recalcitrant individuals who are simply unwilling to spay/neuter.

Beginning in February, when this issue was first brought to our attention, we said that VSA and Defenders of Animals are both known for their excellent rescue work. We support both groups, but we disagree on this particular aspect of how spay/neuter can be increased. Our opinion is not based on theories, or predictions, or concepts -- our opinion is based on facts and statistics. Our opinion is that to require something which is not possible for the 3 critical sources of cat overpopulation (shelter cats, feral cats, and low-income household cats) -- will result in increased abandonment and euthanasia.

Kathy MacPherson
PawsWatch